Fish

This is a suit brought on a promissory note, on which payment on account of interest had been made. The answer of the defendants denies nonpayment and sets up an. affirmative defense by alleging certain agreements made as to the drilling of a well, claiming damages for failure of the well to produce the amount of water alleged to have been warranted.

The court in its findings on evidence introduced, finds against the contention of the defendants that such a warranty was made. The appellants urge “that it is inherently improbable that the casing could have been properly perforated under the flow conditions as they existed before reperforation, ’ ’ but the finding is not of an impossible fact and the evidence is sufficient to support the finding made.

One contention of the defendants is that the court erred in excluding evidence of defendants’ damage by reason of lack of water from the well. If the trial court was right in its findings and if we are right in the conclusion we have heretofore reached, all of this evidence which was ruled out is now immaterial.

As to the last contention of the appellants, that they were entitled to a set-off of three hundred dollars for pulling and…