#### ATWATER v. HUGHES and CROTTS.

(Filed 9 November, 1927.)

Civil actioN, before Midyette, J., at March Term, 1927, of Dubham.

Plaintiff brought suit against tbe defendants on a promissory note. Tbe defendants alleged tbat tbe note as drawn was payable one year after date, whereas there was an agreement between tbe parties tbat it should be payable three years after date, and asked for reformation of tbe note upon tbe ground of fraud, and as a cause of action against tbe plaintiff, set up a counterclaim for damages arising from misrepresentation in a sale of timber made by tbe plaintiff to tbe defendants, said note being part of tbe purchase price.

Issues of fraud and damage were submitted to tbe jury and answered against tbe defendants and in favor of tbe plaintiff for tbe face amount of said note witb interest thereon.

From judgment upon tbe verdict tbe defendants appealed.

McLendon & Hedrick for plaintiff.

Mel J. Thompson for defendants.

Per Cubiam.

Tbis record presents solely and exclusively a question of fact. Tbe cause was submitted to tbe jury upon a charge totally free from error. A consideration of tbe entire record unerringly leads to tbe conclusion tbat tbe rights of tbe parties have been determined in accordance witb law.

No error.