Hemme

This is an action upon a promissory note, made and delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant in his answer denies the due execution of the note, or that it was executed for a valuable consideration for reasons thereinafter set forth. And he alleges that on and after the year 1870, and up to about the 1st of November, 1875, he was engaged in the business of buying and selling goods, at the town of Yuba City, in this State, and that during the last two years of that period he had in his employ, as clerk and business manager, one William Hemme, who, during said time, was also the agent of the plaintiff, and that he acted in all business transactions between the plaintiff and defendant, and that said William Hemme was so acting at the date of the execution of said note, and that said William Hemme, by fraudulently representing to the defendant that there was a balance due to plaintiff from defendant, upon an account between them, induced the defendant to sign said note, and that defendant signed said note under protest and without any consideration whatever. Defendant further alleges that said plaintiff, while acting as defendant’s agent, received various sums of…

I concur in the judgment, for the reason that the. appeal is taken from the judgment, and there is no bill of exceptions bringing before us the ruling of the'Court below on the motion for judgment on the pleadings. This motion and the ruling there *340 on is not made a part of the judgment roll by a bill of exceptions. Without such a bill it constitutes no part of the judgment roll, and, in my opinion, the ruling on the motion cannot be considered on this appeal, which is stated in the notice of appeal to be taken from the judgment roll.