Case ID: scl_18/html/0305-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’íNeall, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Benjamin Hagood v. William Swords.
    In an action by the payee against tbe maker of a promissory note, the latter may give in evidence a verbal agreement, entered into at the making of the note, that it should be delivered up to him, on his performing certain conditions. The performance of the conditions amounts to payment of the note.
    Tried before Mr. Justice Richardson, at Anderson, Spring-Term, 1831.
    Summary process on a promissory note for fifty dollars, given in consideration of plaintiff’s rescinding a contract with defendant for a sale of lands. Defendant introduced evidence of a verbal agreement by plaintiff, when the note was given, to surrender it to defendant, if he would procure a purchaser for the land at a specified price; and proved that he did procure a purchaser, and that plaintiff had sold the land to him at the price specified.
    His Honor received the evidence; but held that he could not take it into consideration in the present action, as it went to vary the terms of a written instrument by parol proof, and was, therefore, inadmissible. Decree for plaintiff.
    Defendant now moved to reverse the decree, on the ground, that the evidence was admissible, and amounted to proof of payment.
    Burt, for the motion.
   O’íNeall, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The defence in this case is, that the defendant had done an act, which the plaintiff agreed should be a payment, or satisfaction of the note. It is perfectly competent for parties to make, or discharge their contracts, upon such terms as they please. If the plaintiff was disposed to agree that property, or the personal services of the defendant, should be a payment of the note, the delivery of the one, or the performance of the other, was as much payment, as if it had been made in money. It is true, that a verbal contract to alter the terms, or the legal effect of the note, could not have been given in evidence; but the contract, relied on in defence, is not intended to have that effect.. It admits the note tobe as stated, but relies upon the after agreement, that the plaintiff would upon the defendant’s procur*nS a Purcbaser for the land, give up the ncite. The legal effect of this verbal agreement is, that when the defendant has performed his part of it, it shall be regarded as a payment. The note is the value put by the plaintiff.upon the defendant’s services in procuring a purchaser of the land át a given sum. The motion for a new trial is, therefore, granted.