Held,

delivering the opinion of the Court), that the note was properly admitted, it not being inconsistent with the allegations of the declaration, but that as there was no other evidence, and as the note described in the declaration was not alleged to have been made by that name and style, the mere production of the note, without further proof to identify it as the note sued upon, was not sufficient to authorise a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed, &c.