#### H. ABDALLAH v. CHARLES F. DUNN and CLARK MILLER.

(Filed 20 October, 1926.)

Appeal by defendant, Charles F. Dunn, from Bond, J., at June Term, 1926, of LeNOIe. No error.

Two actions, one entitled “Clark Miller v. Charles F. Dunn,” and tbe other, “H. Abdallah v. Charles F. Dunn and Clark Miller,” pending in tbe Superior Court of Lenoir County, were consolidated for trial at June Term, 1924. Tbe relief demanded in both actions required an accounting between defendants Dunn and Miller. Dunn is tbe bolder, by endorsement of tbe payee, of a note secured by mortgage on land executed by Miller. Since Dunn became tbe owner of tbe note Miller has conveyed tbe land described in tbe mortgage to plaintiff, Abdallah, who, as part of tbe consideration for tbe conveyance, assumed payment of tbe note. There was a controversy between Miller and Dunn as to tbe amount due upon tbe note. From judgment in accordance with tbe verdict, and admissions in tbe record, defendant Dunn appealed to tbe Supreme Court.

Sutton & Green for plaintiff..

Charles F. Dunn in propria sua.

Per Curiam.

Upon an appeal by defendant Dunn to tbis Court, from judgment rendered at June Term, 1924, of Superior Court of Lenoir County, appellant’s assignments of error were sustained and a new trial ordered. Miller v. Dunn, 188 N. C., 397. Issues necessary to a judgment finally determining tbe rights of tbe parties, involving tbe amount paid by Dunn to Copeland Bros., by whom tbe note was transferred to Dunn, and tbe application of payments, aggregating $100, made by Miller to Dunn, after tbe transfer of tbe note, were not submitted to tbe jury on tbe former trial. Upon tbe new trial tbe facts involved in tbe issues suggested have been found by tbe jury, upon competent evidence, and under instructions free from error. Appellant’s exceptions to tbe admission of evidence, to issues submitted, and to tbe judgment, cannot be sustained. Tbe judgment is affirmed. There is

No error.