#### Sam Barnett and George Barnett, copartners as Barnett Brothers, Appellants, v. Joseph Friedman et al., Appellees.

Gen. No. 18,866.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Adelor J. Petit, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1912.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed March 5, 1914.

Statement of the Case.

Bill filed by Sam Barnett and George Barnett, co-partners, doing business in the name of Barnett Brothers, against Joseph Friedman, D. J. Friedman and John P. Tansey to cancel a contract for the purchase of diamonds and jewelry and to enjoin a suit on. *219a note given for part of the purchase price. The bill alleged that the complainants purchased the articles from the Friedmans, who guarantied the weight of the diamonds as stated on tags attached thereto, and that they had fraudulently transferred a note given by Sam Barnett for part of the purchase price to defendant Tansey, who took with knowledge of the warranty. From a decree dismissing the bill and granting the relief prayed in Tansey’s cross-bill, complainants appeal.

Abstract of the Decision.

Injunction, § 206' * '—when decree dismissing Mil to enjoin suit on note sustained hy the evidence. On hill to cancel a contract for the purchase of diamonds and jewelry for breach of warranty and to enjoin a suit on a note given for part of the purchase price, it being alleged that the note was transferred by the payees to the party suing on the note who took with knowledge of the conditions of warranty, held that a decree dismissing the original bill and awarding the relief prayed in the cross-bill filed by the holder of the note was sustained by the evidence, it appearing that the note was transferred to holder before maturity and for valuable consideration without notice of the conditions under which the note was given to the payees.

D. B. Brillow, for appellants.

F. P. Salisbury and M. Marso, for appellees.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice Fitch

delivered the opinion of the court.