Case ID: ga_98/html/0370-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lumpkin, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

POWELL v. FRALEY, executor.
    Where an action was brought against a partnership composed of two persons, and against each of them individually, on a promissory note upon which there was an entry of a payment made-after (the note had become barred by the statute of limitations, - which entry was signed by one of the partners, the petition, in effect, also declaring upon the new promise evidenced by such entry, there was no error, so far at least as this defendant was-concerned, in striking a plea alleging that he made the entry in question in consideration of a verbal agreement that he was to be liable for only one half of the amount of the note; nor was-any error committed in rejecting parol evidence offered in support of this plea.
    April 27, 1896. Argued at the last term.
    Complaint on note. Before Judge Beese. Hancock, superior court. February term, 1895.
    
      T. M. Hunt and J. A. Harley, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Robert H. Lewis, contra.
   Lumpkin, Justice.

This was an action upon a promissory note, brought by the executor of William Fraley against L. Powell & Co., a partnership composed of L. Powell and L. G. Morris, and against each member of the partnership individually. It was not denied that at the time of the execution, of the note it was a valid debt of the partnership, and consequently each member was originally liable for its payment. The note became, however, barred, by the statute of limitations. Thereafter, a payment was made upon it by Powell, and an entry of this fact was made upon the note and signed by him, all of which appears from the allegations of the petition. The effect of this entry undoubtedly was to constitute a new promise on the part of Powell to pay the entire amount which remained due upon the note; and therefore the court, did not err in striking a plea which alleged that he made this entry in consideration of a verbal agreement that he was to be held liable only for one half of tbe amount due tbereon, nor in refusing to admit parol evidence in support of such plea. Making and signing the entry on the note was, in law, an unconditional promise on the part of Powell to pay the whole debt evidenced by the note; and if anything is settled, it is that a contract of this kind cannot be altered or explained away by parol evidence. Judgment affirmed.