2. That said draft was, for value, after acceptance thereof by defendant, duly assigned to Fiacro Fisher, the plaintiff herein, who ever since has been, and now is, the owner and holder thereof.

3. That there has been paid by defendant upon said draft after acceptance the sum of $1,100; that no other or further sum has been paid thereon; that thereafter, and before the commencement of this suit, plaintiff duly demanded of defendant the balance due, to wit, the sum of $1,438.12, but to pay the same or any part thereof the defendant then and there and ever since has refused; that there is now due, owing, payable, and unpaid from defendant to plaintiff the sum of $1,438.12, in United States gold coin, together with interest thereon at seven per cent per annum from the 16th day of September, 1904, to wit, $113.32,-in all, $1,551.44, in United States gold coin. Wherefore, plaintiff prays judgment against defendant for said sum of $1,551.44, in United States gold coin, together with his costs herein expended. W. C. Kennedy, Attorney for plaintiff.

[Verification.]

FORM No. 769-By payee of check against drawer.

[Title of court and cause.]

The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and alleges:

day of

19 at

1. That on the the defendant made and delivered to the plaintiff his check, in writing, of that date, and directed the same to the bank of C. D., requiring said bank to pay to the plaintiff or order [or bearer] $ in the words and figures as follows: [Copy.]

2. That said check was duly presented on the

said check being

day of

19, to the said [drawee] for payment, but was not paid, due notice of which was given to the defendant [drawer].

3. [Same as paragraph 3, form No. 735.] [Concluding part.]

FORM No. 770-By endorsee or bearer of check against drawer.

[Title of court and cause.]

The plaintiff complains of the defendant, and alleges:

made his check, in writing, of that date, and directed the same to the Bank of

thereby requiring said bank to pay to one L. M. or

order [or bearer] $

2. That the defendant then and there endorsed the same to this

was duly presented to said bank for payment, but was not paid, due notice of which was given to the defendant.

4. [Same as paragraph 3, form No. 735.] [Concluding part.]

FORM No. 771-By endorsee or bearer of check against drawer and en

dorser.

[Title of court and cause.]

The plaintiff complains of the defendants, and alleges:

1. That on the

day of

19 at

the defendant Y. Z. made his check in writing of that date, and directed it to the bank of C. D., thereby requiring the said C. D. to pay to the defendant W. X. or order [or bearer] $ and delivered it to the

defendant W. X.

2. That thereupon the said W. X. endorsed the same to this plaintiff for value.

3. That the said check was duly presented for payment, but payment thereof was refused, due notice of which was given to the defendants.

4. [Same as paragraph 3, form No. 735.] [Concluding part.]

FORM No. 772-Omission to give notice excused.

[Title of court and cause.]

1. [As in preceding form.]

2. That thereafter [or on the

day of

19,] the same

was duly presented to said [drawee] for payment, but the defendant had no funds with said drawee.

3. [Same as paragraph 3, form No. 735.] [Concluding part.]

§ 345. ANSWERS.

FORM No. 773-Defense of payment before endorsement.

[Title of court and cause.]

Defendant answering plaintiff's complaint [or petition], alleges: 1. That after the bill mentioned therein was due, and while the said [drawer] was the holder thereof, and before this action was brought,

the defendant satisfied and discharged the principal and interest [and damages] due on said bill, by payment to the said [drawer].

2. That after said payment, and not before, said [drawer] endorsed said bill to the plaintiff.

[Etc.]

FORM No. 774-Defense of no consideration.

[Title of court and cause.]

The defendant answers to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition], and alleges:

1. That the note mentioned therein was given by the defendant solely for and on account of certain goods [here describe], sold and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff, and without any other consideration therefor.

2. That the plaintiff was not the owner of said goods so sold and delivered to the defendant, but the same were the property of one C. D., who, on the 19 recovered said property

day of

from the defendant in an action of replevin; that the defendant has received no consideration for said note.

[Etc.]

FORM No. 775-Defenses of want of consideration and fraud.

(In Fifth National Bank v. Edholm, 25 Neb. 741, 742; 41 N. W. 776.) [Title of court and cause.]

[Introductory part.]

1. Defendants admit that they made and delivered to

of

their certain promissory note, but deny that the plaintiff in due course of business, or for a valuable consideration, and before maturity, purchased the said note.

to

2. Defendants allege the fact to be that said note was made, executed, and delivered under the following circumstances: That on 19, they, the defendants, had made, executed, and delivered their certain promissory note in the sum of $ of payable in days thereafter; that before said note became due defendants applied for and obtained permission to renew the same, with instructions to pay, when presented at the bank of the city of , the amount due, and to draw a sight draft upon the said in a like sum, at the same time sending the new note, with interest added; that defendants paid said first-mentioned note when pre

sented as aforesaid, and drew their draft as agreed, which draft was dishonored, and has never been paid; that defendants have not received any consideration for the note sued upon in this action, and that the same was obtained by fraud and undue means [here, ordinarily, the circumstances of such fraud and undue influence should be set forth]; that said note appears to have been endorsed over by said of who have made a pretended trans

and

fer to this plaintiff for the sole and only purpose, as defendants [are informed and] believe [and upon such information and belief aver], of suing upon the same for the benefit of said

[Etc.]

FORM No. 776—Defense of no consideration based upon false warranty of goods sold.

[Title of court and cause.]

The defendant answers to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition]: 1. That the note mentioned therein was given by the defendant solely for and on account of certain goods called sold and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff, and without any other consideration therefor.

2. That said goods were purchased by the defendant, as the plaintiff then well knew, for the purpose of [here state], and the plaintiff, as part of the contract of sale and consideration of said note, warranted and represented that said goods were fit and proper and suitable for such purpose.

3. That the defendant accepted and purchased said goods for the purpose of [here state], trusting in the said representations and warranty of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff well knew.

4. That the said goods were not fit or proper for said purpose, the same being [state defect], and have always been, and are altogether, useless to the defendant.

5. That as soon as the defendant discovered the defective character of said goods for the purpose aforesaid, he notified the plaintiff thereof, and offered to return them, and this the defendant is still ready and willing to do.

[Concluding part.]

FORM No. 777-Defense that note was executed for a pre-existing indebtedness, and endorsed by an officer of a corporation without consideration.

(In Lovejoy v. Citizens' Bank, 23 Kan. 331.)

[Title of court and cause.]

Defendant admits the execution by defendants of the note on which the plaintiff sues, and the endorsement by this defendant of his name on the back thereof, but he says said note was not executed to this defendant, but to the plaintiff in the name of this defendant, as [an officer, to wit, the] president of the plaintiff, and was so executed because it was customary for plaintiff to take notes of its debtors in the name of one of its officers as payee; that it was executed in consideration of a pre-existing and overdue indebtedness of the defendants and to the plaintiff, and not for the purpose of procuring credit for this defendant, nor for this defendant [in any respect whatsoever], nor for any consideration other than said pre-existing and overdue indebtedness; that afterwards, without any consideration or benefit whatever moving between the plaintiff and the defendants, or between the plaintiff and any one else, but merely in accordance with the custom of the plaintiff, this defendant, as president of the plaintiff, and not otherwise, endorsed his name on the back of said note; that at no time was this defendant the owner and holder of said note, nor was any other person than plaintiff the owner and holder thereof at any time, and the said endorsement of said note by this defendant was wholly without consideration. [Concluding part.]

FORM No. 778-Defense of fraud in procuring note.

[Title of court and cause.]

The defendant answers to the plaintiff's complaint [or petition], and alleges:

1. That the note mentioned therein was procured by the plaintiff from this defendant by fraud and false representations [setting out what they were].

2. That the said representations were then known by the plaintiff to be false, and were made by him with intent to deceive and defraud this defendant.