The controversy on trial in the Superior Court narrowed itself principally to the question as to whether the plaintiff was a holder in due course (C. S., 3033) of the note sued'on, under the doctrine announced in Bank v. Exum, 163 N. C., 199, and Worth v. Feed Co., 172 N. C., 342. This fact having been established in plaintiff’s favor by the jury’s answer to the first issue, we think the exceptions appearing in the record must be overruled. The case presents no new point, or issue, which would seem to merit an extended discussion.

No error.