¶1 All tbe findings of fact made' by tbe referee were supported by evidence introduced at tbe bearing before bim. There was, therefore, no error in tbe refusal of tbe trial judge to sustain plaintiff’s exceptions to tbe findings of fact. Kenney v. Hotel Co., 194 N. C., 44, 138 S. E., 349.
¶2 Nor was there error in tbe refusal of tbe trial judge to sustain plaintiff’s exceptions to tbe referee’s conclusions of law. Plaintiff’s intestate, contemporaneously witb tbe execution by defendants of tbe notes and mortgage involved in this action, for a valuable consideration, contracted and agreed witb tbe defendants that at her death tbe defendants should be absolutely released from any and all their indebtedness to her, *458 or to her estate. Tbis contract is valid and enforceable against tbe plaintiff. Fawcett v. Fawcett, 191 N. C., 679, 132 S. E., 796. By tbe terms of tbis contract defendants are now tbe owners of tbe notes secured by tbe mortgage, certainly as against tbe plaintiff.
¶3 We find no error in tbe judgment. It is Affirmed.