proper under the laws of this state, and to clinch the matter counsel for defendant admitted in open court that the legal rate of interest in the state of Minnesota was 7 per cent. The two rates were shown to be identical, and we might add that no testimony was necessary to show the proper rate on an overdue claim. In the absence of contract the law fixes the rate at 7 per cent. on such claims. But, aside from all questions connected with the interest it is obvious that the principal sum named in the note was past due, and hence the plaintiff could not be properly nonsuited on account of failure to show-if he had failed-how much was due him on account of the interest. This view of the record leads us to conclude that the learned trial court directed a verdict for the defendant wholly upon the theory that the note described in the complaint is void upon its face, or, at least, that it does not on its face import a legal obligation resting upon the defendant. The plaintiff put the note in evidence, and showed by a witness who had made the computation of interest that a certain sum was due as interest. If the note evidenced a legal debt due from defendant to plaintiff, this evidence made out a prima facie case for plaintiff. Even this was unnecessary, for the reason that the answer admits that the defendant received the money, and exeucted and delivered the note to plaintiff, and that the same was unpaid. The answer is fully responsive to all the' material allegations of the complaint, and amounts to a plea of confession. Upon the answer the defendant was legally entitled to have judgment entered in his favor on the pleadings, unless, in addition to the plea of confession, the answer sets out facts showing an avoidance of the cause of action stated in the complaint, and this it fails to do, as will hereafter appear.
An examination of the instrument sued upon discloses that it contains all the essentials of a promissory note. It is a clear, plain, unambiguous agreement in writing to pay a specified sum in money at a time stated unconditionally. It is true, the note embraces the phrase, "On account of the ranch." While these words are superfluous, they do not import or indicate that the defendant is not personally bound by the obligation. They do not embody a condition of any sort; nor are they ambiguous at
