Appeal from the Supreme Court. The complaint alleged that on the 15th of April, 1858, a note was made by one Clark Reason, and H. Addington as his surety, for $130, with interest, payable one year from date to Charles Arnold or bearer, at the store of Thompson & Bennett, in Willink; that the note was transferred by Arnold, the payee, to the plaintiff; that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff on the note in the sum of $130, with interest; and that such indebtedness originated upon a contract between Reason, the maker of the note, and Pryor, the defendant, by which Reason transferred to the defendant the horses for which the note was given, and the latter in consideration thereof agreed to pay the note to the plaintiff, or any one else who might be the holder and owner, and to save Reason harmless from the payment of the note and costs.

The answer contained a denial of each allegation in the complaint, and averred a. release and discharge by Reason from the alleged agreement.

On the hearing before the referee, the note was read in evidence under defendant’s objection, and Reason was called as a witness for the plaintiff, who testified, in substance, that some time after he gave the note, he told the defendant he was much embarrassed with debt; that the defendant told him he would take his property to pay certain debts, and would pay for the horses; and that he accordingly let the defendant have twenty-one tons of hay, with other property, including the horses for which this note was given. On cross-examination of the witness, it appeared that at the time the arrangement was made, the bargain was reduced to writing, and that the property which he let the defendant have, and the debts which the latter was to pay,' were stated in the written agreement. He did not remember whether he signed it himself or not, but he was indebted to the defendant, and the agreement was drawn up for them by an attorney, and delivered at the time to the defendant.

A motion was thereupon made to strike out the parol evidence of the agreement between Eeason and the défendant, on the ground that the written contract was the appropriate evidence of such agreement. The motion was denied, and the defendant’s counsel excepted.

The plaintiff was then sworn as a witness, and testified, under objection and exception by the' defendant, that the defendant on one occasion told him that he had made some arrangements with Eeason to pay this note and some other debts, and that he would pay the note if the plaintiff would take certain property, but on looking at the property he declined to take it.

The defendant proved the execution of a release by Eeason from the agreement, so far as it related to the note in question, and the plaintiff testified that he had no notice of such release. ' ■

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress