Case ID: shan-cas_1/html/0044-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JOHN R. CALL v. ABRAM HAUN, Administrator.
    (S. C., Thomp. Cas., 68-69.)
    Knoxville,
    September Term, 1850.
    EVIDENCE. One witness may prove agreement.
    By mutual agreement, the third indorser indemnified the second indorser against the indorsed note, for which the second indorser released the third indorser as a surety on a note payable to the second indorser. Upon a sworn bill in chancery -alleging this agreement* and a denial in tlie answer, the maker of the indorsed note was a competent-witness to prove the agreement, and his evidence was sufficient without any other to establish the agreement. [The parties may testify. Code, sees. 5610, 5611, and notes; secs. 5596, and notes. Except when. Code, secs. 5597, 5598, and notes.]
   Haun agreed with Call that if 'he would indemnify him against a note in bank, on which Haun was second, and Gall third indorser, he, Haun, would release him, Gall, from liability on three notes due from Beasley and Hargiss to Harm, on which Gall was surety. Haun being relieved of his liability as indorser with Call upon the note in bank, refused to comply with his agreement to cancel Call’s suretyship upon the three notes of which he Haun, was payee, but brought suit before a justice of the peace upon the three notes, and recovered judgments, which this bill was filed in chancery to enjoin. The maker of the note in hank was the only witness to prove the agreement on the part of Haun to release Gall from his suretyship on these three notes.

The court held that he was competent and sufficient without any other, to contradict the denial in the answer, the bill being sworn to.

Decree for relief affirmed.