¶1Suit on note, and to reform and foreclose a mortgage.
¶2The only questions presented by the brief of the appellants are, that the Court erred in overruling a demurrer to the complaint, and in refusing to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
¶3As to the first point, the note and mortgage were filed with the complaint and sufficiently referred to therein. Ellis v. Miller, 9 Ind. 210.
¶4As to the second, it is settled in Toner v. Mitchell, 13 Ind. 530.
¶5The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent, damages and costs.