We are of opinion that there is no error in the judgment of the court below. The sufficiency of the defense relied on, setting up a parol agreement contemporaneous "and inconsistent with the written contract of indorsement, if it had been excepted to, might well have been questioned. The plaintiffs in error, however, were allowed an opportunity of proving it, and failed.

Judgment was properly rendered against them, and it is affirmed with damages for the delay.

Affirmed with damages.