Tbe exceptions present very little for tbe consideration ■of tbe Court, tbe questions before us being almost entirely issues of fact wbetber tbe contract was tbe individual obligation of tbe three defendants wbo signed tbe same or wbetber in fact tbey signed witb tbe understanding tbat tbey represented a partnership consisting of a league of colored farmers which was not a corporation.
Tbe court properly permitted tbe witness McGinnis to state what ■commission was paid to tbe defendant Hall by tbe plaintiff as a consideration for bis signing tbe contract, tbe purpose being to show tbat said Hall was tbe guarantor for a consideration. Farquhar Co. v. Hardware Co., 174 N. C., 376.
Tbe main issue raised by tbe defendants was wbetber tbe defendants signed tbe contract as individuals or as a committee, and tbe court therefore properly admitted evidence tbat Brown, one of tbe three defendants wbo signed tbe contract individually, gave orders as to whom tbe fertilizer contracted for should be shipped.
Tbe defendants having testified tbat tbey signed tbe contract previous to 1920, in tbe same manner in which tbey bad executed this 1920 contract, tbe court properly permitted to be put in tbe evidence tbe contract for 1919. It appeared therefrom tbat tbe defendants executed tbat contract as individuals. It was competent to permit tbe plaintiff to show tbat before tbey accepted this contract signed by tbe defendant, .and especially by tbe defendant Hall, tbat tbey bad investigated tbe financial standing of tbe three defendants before entering into tbe ■contract.
Tbe defendant Hall having testified tbat be bad not consented to taking tbe renewal notes, there was no error in tbe court permitting tbe plaintiff’s witness to testify upon tbe second issue as to wbetber tbe renewal notes were taken witb tbe knowledge and consent of tbe defendants, and tbe statement as to what Hall bad said to him in regard to taking said renewal notes.
Tbe contract on its face having been signed by tbe defendants .as individuals, and tbe defendants having, in their amended answer and by their testimony, undertaken to show tbat it was not their intention to sign as individuals but as committeemen, tbe court properly admitted testimony as to statements made by tbe defendants to its agent admitting their individual responsibility some two years after tbe contract bad been executed.
Tbe eighth and ninth exceptions cannot be considered, for tbe questions excepted to by tbe defendants were not answered, and tbe tenth exception, for tbe refusal to give a prayer for instructions, cannot be ■sustained because it assumed as true statements of facts which were ■controverted.
*100Tbe eleventh exception was also properly refused because tbe court went further than tbe request and charged tbe jury “that if tbe defendants signed tbe contract as agents or as a committee, it was not necessary for them to have added committee thereto, but it would have been better for them to have done so.”
As to tbe twelfth exception, tbe defendants cannot complain of tbe refusal of tbe court to give the third prayer to charge because it was already fully covered in tbe charge as given on tbe second issue and also on tbe third issue, in which the court instructed tbe jury, “If you find that tbe defendants signed tbe contract as committeemen with tbe knowledge of tbe plaintiff, and afterwards extended tbe time and took tbe renewals without tbe -consent of tbe defendants, you will answer tbe third issue ‘Nothing.’ ”
If tbe court committed any errors in tbe trial of this cause they were in favor of tbe defendants.
In consideration of all tbe exceptions, we find nothing in tbe trial of which tbe defendants can complain.
No error.