Clinton

This action is based upon a promissory note.

Appellants admit the due execution and delivery of said note, but claim it was given without consideration. The evidence shows that in April, 1925, the respondent leased to the appellants for a term of two years a house; that in the house were certain household goods such as carpets, draperies, chairs, tables, etc.; that the respondent and appellants inventoried said goods and placed a separate value on each article, the total value being $642; that the appellants purchased said personal property, giving therefor the promissory note here sued upon. It further appears without conflict that said goods were of the reasonable value of said sum. Mrs. Yates, one of the appellants, testified that there was a further agreement which was a part of the consideration of said note. Said agreement that respondent was to give appellants a lease of said premises for five years, but respondent has failed and refused to do so. This testimony was contradicted by the respondent and his witnesses and the trial court resolved the conflict in favor of the respondent. The rule that the finding of the trial court under such circumstances will not be dis3.…