Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-06-04

The plaintiff the Circuit Court county,
judgment the defendant ground that he his
surety in, and had paid Of Judgment The following note
18TH. BONNEVILLE, Tenn, Aug. 8, ls5t.
Four months after date, either Of promise 70 pay
Jas. W. Johnson ersr the Branch Of the BANK Ten
shebyie seven seventy dollars
value received Witness cur hands and SEALS date above
S. X. WHITsON, (seal.l
J. b. BATEs, (seal)9
Endorsed by johnson, Knight Stamps and Elicit The Bank
suei the makers and endorsr and Bates paid the judgment
1he Court submitted the question Of surehp to ne jury and
they found the isue against Bates HE errors are upon
the charge Of the Court These will be better b
brief statement Of the facts.
and driving hogs the South Part Of ire funds employed -
in this business raised By bal of sHhangs No
bile for $500 drawn b. ten ana endorsed ~ ne sane men,
perhaps who endorsed this doscouned by the Bank An
amount sCentt pay "a this bill reIainei cut the PRO
tie pI haEs Of rgg Tor ha-
pose paid ALL balance which he applied
Bank he would soon discharge before wEzOn,
and Whon his administrator he applied 70 tie Bank
counting The OF Tggg ten sAought
be good turned otherwise in the end and the srus
the issue submitted the jury Tsere eonrogrs bal
the proceeds Of this applied to the u
t&lanee upon bill OF exonge Of Irg aaa Rates
bat the quescn raised the ground tat Whson ou y
not bound, when be became adinAior q Ig IN view o.
the fact his shoad have paid the debt and ens
ering the estate eEy Eolyen made Il bis oSn debt and pro
crrst Bates to become Joint maker Of the not m the character
Of aurety themselves In order TO obtain he
s1dCs and satisfy the demand Of the Bank, TO have the
on ts note they the bill Of exchange aP
pears by the proof Johnon, Of the endoTss that when
the note presented to bin hrs 70 endorse one
maker and he refused To endorse It unless Bates who bound
ran would become ioat Isasr no after which
returned with Raes name AMI he endorsed il This applica
ton e7st and last was BY Whson but Jct
who was JOINT administrator OF nigg
After the note fell and protested and sued upon, Whit
tod Bates be ill not intend for him the note,
part Of it. tina; he should one dime Of IT, he lad
become bound It at his Eht Onsl request and for his
commoation get the sndarser upon appeus further
that after sent execution, upon application
foT the moy he said hsd not have the money Of his own
o. o the estate told the officer request
the money him, and he should he paid o. in, the first
Of the wes and Bates aa fell due for the land and nil
Of " H. Trgg the inesate, which sold pas
The witness the money atthe request OF Bates who has
Upon these facts the Court charged il eject that the question
Of suetyaP depended NOT upon the form, but the substance Of
the Transaction IhaH the money asc on The note was in
tended be- and vas appIe to the payment Of debt for which
lates and Wh'u bound, be Woul surety
WhtsOn, and the tet that Bates had placed In the hand
Trig the bill would make difference, that would
ony question between the partners in their settlement
lie further csFes That me debt vas Bates for which the
money rais the understanding Of the parties the
lson hey wou ocen5 on the oe could not change The
ton but that from the note was pay debt
Tor which Bates hound hs0n not, the law
raj and not the surety. The Court vas requested charge that
tae PARTIES might BY contract change the relation, II The
ed Whether the Court considered proposition unsound
not applicable 70 the facts Of the and herefOre mere
il the facts not question proPoandsl II right
reuse 50 instruct TIE jury even 81 such was me law In
deed would hare been improper though not error to have done
to perhaps declined the other grgund that the
proof enough tending to establish that as the understanding Of
~ the 1s,F1efous ssksi isprcrery before US FOR
diion We are not any authority the exact point
but We think Il presents serious difficulty upon principle. II
must e 70 great ahrTdy 70 hold that is lie obligation
incurred BY discharge the debt Of
oher who was in way bound for the original debt
come the principals and the other wA0e debt paid,
whose benefit the money appropriated, should
surety. such there would be consideration
agreement There might DO whe contract would
enforced, but the facts sOu1 te Differed from these.
confederation whatever. Whson bound
bis individual capacity for he debt paid renewed By this
Ahs be said and did in relation the payment u H.
upon the idea that the estate OF Trgg and In that
event he knew was just that should be paid b him.
rsentatSe Of frgg who had under the a-m ntrd 20
him. for that purpose and he honestly intended that should be
done and Bates saved Bat there nothing 10 SHOW that ne e. er
intended to out Of his without certain pros
peet Of re endorsement out Of the assets be
timed woud prove nsovsnt be destined 70 take
loss himself for the exoneraon OF ons NE ORG
deo-s tke had his and b. declined
N execute contract 70 that eject decssn gosa = he