Horschman

The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants to recover on a promissory note. The defendants answered and also filed a cross-complaint. The plaintiff answered the cross-complaint and a trial was had in the lower court before the court sitting without a jury. The court made findings in favor of the plaintiff and a judgment was entered in accordance with the findings. The defendants have appealed from the judgment under section 953a of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The appellants make but one point and that is that the finding that there was a consideration for the note is not sustained by the evidence. In this behalf the appellants claim that the note was given to secure the payment of services rendered by the plaintiff in drilling certain wells for water, and the appellants contend that the plaintiff held himself out as specially qualified to perform that particular work and that there was an implied warranty that the work which he undertook to do should be reasonably fit for its intended use. No other question is presented by the record. We think that the point is without merit for the following reasons:

In the spring of 1923 the defendants employed the plaintiff to…