First National Bank v. Keown

Pee Curiam.

The action in this case was on a note made by the defendant, Keown, for $3,500. There was a verdict for the defendant, and the plaintiff has a rule for new trial. The reasons urged in the rule are that a verdict should have been directed for the plaintiff and that even if this were not so, the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.

The defense was fraud and illegality in the making of the note and want of consideration. The facts developed in the case were substantially these: George Greis, in the latter part of 1925, borrowed from the bank the sum of $3,500, giving his…