On 22 November, 1922, the defendants executed a negotiable promissory note in the sum -of $900 payable to the order of the Commercial National Bank of Wilmington. The plaintiff alleged-that the note had been signed and endorsed by the defendants and that the Commercial National Bank for value received had sold and transferred the note before maturity to the plaintiff. The defendants denied 'these allegations and pleaded fraud in procuring the execution of the note; but admitted that it has not been paid.

*868 Upon proper issues tbe jury found tbat tbe execution of tbe note bad been procured from tbe defendants by false and fraudulent representations; tbat tbe plaintiff is a bolder in due course; and tbat tbe defendants are indebted to plaintiff in tbe sum of $900 witb interest from 21 January, 1923. Judgment was given for tbe plaintiff and tbe defendants excepted and appealed.

We find no error wbicb entitles tbe defendants to a new trial. If tbe plaintiff became a bolder in due course, as tbe verdict determines, it took tbe note free and discharged of tbe defendants’ equities; and tbe controversy upon this question was fairly presented to tbe jury. Tbe exceptions do not disclose good cause for a new trial.

No error.