Chadbourne

This action is by the plaintiffs as copartners against the defendant upon a promissory note for the sum of $1,000, dated April 3, 1914, and due and payable on September’ 1, 1914. The complaint is in the usual form of such an action. In due time the defendant filed an answer, admitting the execution of the note by him and that it was given as in part payment of a certain tractor, but defending himself against the validity of the note on the ground that the tractor failed to measure up to an alleged express warranty made by the seller as to the capacity of ■the machine to perform the work for which it was designed. The answer alleges that, immediately upon discovering that the tractor was not as warranted, the defendant rescinded the contract for its purchase and offered to restore the tractor. to the plaintiffs, at the same time demanding the return to him of the note in suit; that plaintiffs refused, and ever since have refused, to accept the return of said tractor and to deliver to defendant the said note. In the same answer the defendant set up a second defense based upon false and fraudulent representations by the plaintiffs relative to the tractor and its capacity or power for…