On Motion for Rehearing.
In the motion for rehearing, attention is ■called to the fact that on page 5 of the original opinion the date of the note in suit is given as March 2,1912. This is a typographical error, and should be November 2, 1912, as correctly appears at the beginning of the opinion.
Criticism is also made of our statement in the former opinion that assignments 7, 8, and 9, along with others named, presented the question of variance between the note sued -upon and that offered in evidence in reference to the identity of the iron works and the iron works company. Appellant now points out that these three particular assignments were not intended to and do not raise the question of identity as stated, but whether the savings bank acquired or owned the note on November 15, 1912, as is claimed. The point is well taken, and we hasten to acknowledge the inadvertence and make the correction.
But this mere erroneous grouping of some ofr the assignments relating to it does not mean that the question as to the ownership of the note on the date the bank claimed to have acquired it did not receive our careful consideration, or that it was left undetermined. Upon the contrary, it was an inherent part of appellant’s chief defense that the bank was not an innocent purchaser of the note for value before maturity without notice of his alleged defenses against it, and was necessarily determined adversely to his contention in our former conclusion that the trial court did not err in holding the bank to be such innocent purchaser. If, however, it may even technically appear that the three assignments under consideration were not specifically overruled, that is here done, and the motion for rehearing overruled.
Overruled.