been admitted to probate in said court, and said proceeding was entitled "In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Louis H. Cramer and William Nelson Cromwell, as Executors of the Last Will and Testament of Frank Leslie, deceased.'' That said proceeding was brought, among other things, to fix and determine the interest and rights in the said estate of the legatees and creditors of the said decedent, including the plaintiff herein, and in said proceedings said court had jurisdiction to hear and finally adjudicate the claim of the plaintiff against said estate.

11th. That the plaintiff herein was a party to said accounting proceeding, and was duly cited to appear therein and service of the citation therein was duly made upon the plaintiff by publication, pursuant to an order of said Surrogates' Court, filed and entered in the office of the Clerk of said Surrogates' Court on December 17th, 1915; that said service of said citation was duly made in pursuance of the statutes of the State of New York, and such Surrogates' Court thereby obtained jurisdiction to hear and determine any and all claims of the plaintiff against said estate.

12th. That the plaintiff failed to appear in such accounting proceeding, and, thereafter, such steps were had therein that a decree as duly entered therein and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Surrogates' Court of the County of New York, on the 24th day of July, 1917, which adjudged that the balance of the moneys held by the said executors be available to the payment of the legacies bequeathed in the said will of decedent, so far as the parties to said proceeding were concerned, including the plaintiff herein. That said decree has not been appealed from and the time to appeal therefrom has expired, and the same is final, and is in full force and effect, and that, upon information and belief, by said decree, the plaintiff is finally barred and estopped from maintaining this action and from obtaining, or enforcing any judgment thereon.

WHEREFORE, the defendant Cramer prays that the amended complaint be dismissed with costs.

EDGAR T. BRACKETT, Attorney for Defendant Cramer, Town Hall, Saratoga Springs, N. Y.

Louis H. Cramer, being duly sworn, says that he is one of the defendants in the above entitled action; that he has read the foregoing amended answer and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true to his own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters he believes it to be true. LOUIS H. CRAMER.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 6th day of August, 1918.

AGNES C. MONAHAN, Notary Public.

COMMON LAW FORM XVII.-AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENSE UNDER PENNSYLVANIA PRACTICE ACT OF 1915.

G. Henry Smith, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is the defendant in the above entitled cause and that he has a just, true and complete defense to the whole of the plaintiffs' claim of the following nature and character, to wit:

1. Admitted.

2. I admit that I did, together with others, make, execute and deliver a promissory note in the sum of $67,500.00, an approximately correct copy of which is annexed to the statement of claim, on or about the 15th day of April, 1919. I deny that the said note was delivered to the plaintiffs herein for value and I aver that the said note was made and executed under the circumstances set forth in paragraph 11 hereof.

3. I admit that payments on the dates and in the amounts set forth in the third paragraph of the statement of claim were made on behalf of myself and the other makers of the aforesaid promissory note to the plaintiffs herein. I deny that the said payments were made on account of the principal of the said note and aver that the said payments were made in accordance with the facts set forth in paragraph 12 hereof.

4. I admit that payments on the dates and in the amounts set forth in the fourth paragraph of the statement of claim were made on behalf of myself and the other makers of the aforesaid promissory note to the plaintiffs herein. I deny that the said payments were made on account of the interest of the said note and aver that the said payments were made in accordance with the facts set forth in paragraph 12 hereof.

5. I admit that no payments have been made on account of the principal or of the interest of the said note other than in the manner and form set forth in paragraph 12 hereof.

6. I deny that any demand has been made by the plaintiffs for the payment of the aforesaid note other than the suit herein. I admit that I have neglected and refused and aver that I still refuse to pay the aforesaid note or any part thereof.

7. Denied.

8. I deny that I am indebted to the plaintiff for any sum whatsoever for any attorney's fees or costs, whether reasonable or otherwise.

9. I deny that ten per cent of the sum of $52,000 would be a reasonable attorney fee for maintaining a suit and pray that if material the plaintiffs prove what a reasonable attorney's fee would be.

10. I admit that the plaintiffs claim to recover from me the sum of $57,266.64. I deny that they have any claim whatsoever against me.

11. For further defense to the matters set forth in the statement of claim I aver that on or about the 15th day of April, 1919, I, together with Melville [Letgil], Peter [Labe], Ralph [Camel] and [C. E. Nesson],

entered into a contract to purchase from Charles [Laner] and Ed. P. [Docherty], the plaintiffs herein, a certain mining lease and supplemental agreement for the sum of $67,500, the said mining lease to be that made by the Nevada Volcanic Mines Company to Charles [Laner] and Ed. P. [Docherty] for a certain portion of a certain lode mining claim known as the Volcanic Lode Mining Claim, dated on or about the 15th day of February, 1919, which said lease had been supplemented by an agreement between the parties to the lease, which was subsequently reduced to writing and dated April 17th, 1919, and which said lease provided that the same should not be assigned without the consent of the lessors. I aver that the said promissory note was delivered to the Bank of Pioche, Inc., a certain corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada, and having its principal office and doing business at Pioche, in Lincoln County, Nevada, for the sole and express purpose of delivering the same to the plaintiffs herein when, and only when, the said [Laner] and the said [Docherty], or either of them, should deliver to the said Bank of Pioche, for the defendant and the said Melville [Letgil], Peter [Labe], Ralph [Camel] and C. E. [Nesson], and the said note was not to be otherwise effectual, to wit: the aforesaid mining lease and supplemental agreement, with the assignment thereof to the defendant and the said Melville [Letgil], Peter [Labe], Ralph [Camel] and C. E. [Nesson], and the lessors consent to the said assignment in writing. I aver that up to the time of the maturity of the said note neither the said lease, nor the supplemental agreement, nor the assignment of the said lease nor of the supplemental agreement, nor consent of the lessors to the said assignment had been obtained by the said [Laner] or the said [Docherty], nor had they been delivered to the said Bank of Pioche but the said transaction, as the plaintiffs well knew, had never been consummated and I aver that the consent to the assignment of the said lease and the supplemental agreement has never been signed by the aforesaid Nevada Volcanic Mines Company nor has it been delivered to the Bank of Pioche aforesaid, nor to this defendant, nor to any of the above mentioned makers of the aforesaid promissory note, to wit: Melville [Letgil], Peter [Labe], Ralph [Camel] and C. E. [Nesson].

12. I aver that in accordance with the verbal agreement made and entered into between the plaintiffs and myself, and the above mentioned Melville [Letgil], Peter [Labe], Ralph [Camel] and C. E. [Nesson], we took possession of the said mine and operated the same for the account of the plaintiffs pending the consummation of the transaction, whereby we were to purchase the said lease and supplement agreement, and that the amounts mentioned in the third and fourth paragraphs as being paid by me to the plaintiffs were the amounts paid by me and the other parties aforesaid, from the operation of the said mine which we paid over to the lessees thereof and that the said payments were in no sense made on account of the principal of the said note.

13. I further aver that during the month of August, 1919, and subsequent to the 7th day of August, I, and the above named Melville [Letgil],

Peter [Labe], Ralph [Camel] and C. E. [Nesson] surrendered the property mentioned in the said lease and supplemental agreement to the plaintiffs herein and cancelled the agreement for the purchase of the said lease and they, to wit, the plaintiffs, accepted the delivery of the said property and took possession thereof and have since operated it.

14. I am advised by counsel, and, therefore, aver that by reason of the facts set forth in the 11th, 12th and 13th paragraphs of this affidavit of defense I have received no consideration whatsoever for the said note; that if the same was delivered to the plaintiffs by the said Bank of Pioche it was delivered in breach of contract; that the plaintiffs took no title to the said note and that I have given no consideration for the said note.

15. I aver that the plaintiffs and the said Bank of Pioche, in willful and deliberate disregard of the trust reposed in the said Bank of Pioche and in violation of its express parole contract with me, by fraud, coven and collusion, have conspired together and seek by the above entitled cause to collect the said note, well knowing that there was no consideration therefor.

I, therefore, owe the plaintiffs nothing.

All of which facts, as far as they are stated upon this deponent's own knowledge are true and so far as they are stated upon information obtained from others, I believe and aver and expect upon the trial of this cause, to be able to prove.

G. HENRY SMITH.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9th day of November, 1920. WM. S. FENERTY,

[SEAL.]

Com. ex. Jan. 7th, 1923.

Notary Public.

[Endorsed by defendant's attorney, Graham C. Woodward.]

COMMON LAW FORM XVIII.-SIMILITER.

[76 Fed. 427.]

And the said plaintiff, as to the said pleas of the said defendant by him, first, secondly, thirdly, fourthly, fifthly, sixthly, seventhly, eighthly, ninthly, tenthly, eleventhly, twelfthly, and thirteenthly above pleaded, and whereof he has put himself upon the country, does the like.

ROGER FOSTER, Plaintiff's Attorney.

COMMON LAW FORM XIX.-REPLY FOR THE PLAINTIFF UNDER CODE PRACTICE.

[Judgment upon verdict for plaintiff approved by C. C. A. Second Circuit. The author was counsel.]

United States District Court, For Southern District of New York.

JOHN YUHASZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CARNEGIE STEEL COMPANY,

Defendant.

Plaintiff replying to the allegations contained in Paragraphs VIII and IX of defendant's answer herein, alleges:

I. He denies each and every allegation therein contained, except as hereinafter set forth.

FOR A SECOND DEFENSE.

I. Plaintiff alleges that the agreement so alleged in said Paragraphs VIII and IX to have been made and executed by him (if any there be) was procured by the defendant by means of false and fraudulent representations and statements on the part of defendant, its agents and servants, that the same was a receipt only for his wages during the time he was incapacitated and unable to work, and denies that defendant, its agents and servants, or any person whomsoever ever read, interpreted, explained, or stated and represented to him that the said alleged release was in full settlement and satisfaction of all claims and demands against said defendant by reason of the injuries received by him while in defendant's employ, as aforesaid, and he further alleges that he is unable to read and write the English language, and had no knowledge as to the contents of said alleged release, other than the statements and representations so made to him by defendant, its agents and servants that the same was for the payment of wages during the time that he had been incapacitated and unable to work, as aforesaid, and plaintiff relying upon the same, and not otherwise signed the said alleged release.

II. Plaintiff further alleges that since the discovery of the said fraud so practiced upon him by defendant, its agents and servants, as aforesaid, and before the making and serving of this reply, and on the 20th day of December, 1913, he duly caused the said sum of $66.70 so given to him by defendant to be tendered back with interest to defendant, but it refused to receive the same.

III. That this plaintiff has ever since remained and still is ready and willing to return the said sum of $66.70 with interest to defendant, but the defendant has hitherto refused to receive the same.

IV. That this plaintiff now brings the said sum of $66.70 with interest into Court, ready to be paid to defendant, if it will accept the same. Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment that the said alleged release be