#### Ottomar Carliczek, Appellee, v. Otto Rothenstein, Appellant.

Gen. No. 23,321.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Bills and notes, § 420*—What evidence inadmissible in action on note where no claim of offset is filed. In an action to recover a *271balance alleged to be due on a promissory note in which no claim of offset is filed, evidence of sums due by plaintiff to defendant on account of commissions and wages earned under alleged contracts between the parties made subsequently to the execution and delivery of the note, and the subject-matter of which was in no way connected with the note, is inadmissible.

*270Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1917.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 16, 1918.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Ottomar Carliczek, plaintiff, against Otto Rothenstein, defendant, to recover a balance claimed to be dne on a promissory note. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Morris K. Levinson, for appellant.

Allen Gr. Mills, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Matchett

delivered the opinion of the court.

*2712. Set-off and becottpment, § 17*—what inadmissible by way of recoupment. In an action to recover a balance alleged to be due on a promissory note, items arising out of matters unconnected with the execution and delivery of the note are inadmissible by way of recoupment.