¶1Suit upon a promissory note.
¶2Answer—1. Payment. 2. That the note was given to secure the payment of the consideration for a tract of land purchased, &c.; that plaintiffs pretended to be seized in fee, when in fact they had no title. 'Wherefore, &c.
¶3The reply was a denial.
¶4The defendant moved the Court to certify the case to the Circuit Court, which motion was overruled, and upon that ruling the only question in the case is made in the brief of counsel.
¶5This question has already been decided at the present term, in the case of Harvey v. Dakin
¶6The judgment is affirmed with 10 per cent, damages and costs.
¶7Ante, 481.