Schuh

In an action for the principal sum of a promissory note, together with interest and attorneys’ fees, findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment were made and entered in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant having admitted execution of the note and interposed an affirmative defense thereto, motion for a new trial was made upon the ground that findings adverse to said defense were not supported by the evidence, which motion was denied. He appealed from the judgment and from the order deny ing a new trial. There being no right of appeal from such an order it must to that extent be dismissed. (Kircher v. Hunter, 101 Cal. App. 548 [ 281 Pac. 1047 ].)

There is no conflict as to the following transaction: Prior to August 7, 1930, the TJrmi Oil Company was indebted to the respondent bank in the sum of $5,000, which note had been executed by defendant John E. Schuh as president and Edgar D. Brown as secretary, respectively, of said company, and bore the indorsement: “For value received, I hereby . . . guarantee payment of the same, and of all expenses of collection thereof, . . . and also all expenses ... in enforcing this guaranty ... ”, signed by defendant Schuh and B. N.…