Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-05-14

On the llth Of July, 1851, VIM. G3lhreath, JUS
| tice of the peace of Bedford county, rendered q
gdment in favor Of LetSey Cannon, against John NJ.
Warner, as principal, aud John w Rutledge and R.
P. s KinboO endoTs rs for S470.s6 ard costs.
Ga the 2O,h day Of the same month, F. Trail, the
defendant in error wrote and handed to said Warner
the fslloSiEg instrument:
eMR. GALBsEATH E.q.: You may set my name as
slayer 10 debt against John NJ Warner, Tor ab0ut
four hundred dollars in favor Of Letsey Cannon in
The hands Of c. A. Warner .
F. TRArL. [seall
July 20 h. 1885,"
The plsinliF proved by Mr.. Galbreltb, the justice
who rendered the judgment, that John NJ. Warner
brought him the above order, and hat With the con-
sent of Letsey Cannon, the plaintiff, he received IL
and entered said Trail as slayer TO sail Judgment
This order was the only evidence Of Trails
sent TO be the s;ayer
The plaintiff offered to prove by c. A Warner
th4t he Was the Deputy Sheriff Of Bedford county,
aud that the note, upon w1ieh said juJgmest vas
rendered. placed By the plain if hls haBds
o1llect thus he took out the warrant against the
maker and eud0rsers, and returned the same to
william Gslbreath for trial; and that he had no
other debt against said John NJ Warner in favor of
the plsiaii; and by said Gal5reath, that there was
other judgment in favor Of the plaintiff against
| John NJ Warner, rendered by him.
But the Cirsuit Court rejected this evidence, and
held the order TO be invalid and insufficient upon
its face, and that ezirnsic evidence could not be
received TO aid it, so as to bind the defendant.
In this We think the Court erred
The cases Of Barr McGregor, and Rhodes vs.
ChappeIl, IL Hum 5l8 527, establish the principle
if the description Of the judgment be stayed
be rot full eITInse evidence may be received aid
the defective description But that the written
auhoity to the justice must upon its face, contain
such refeF o. and Gescription Of the Judgment,
the execution Of which Is intended to be stayed, ia
some o. more riieulsrs, as without the aid of
e1tIinso evidence, will render it reasonably cerain
IL = 4
~ is the identical Judgment to which the slayer in
tended to b;eome surety.
But that ParOl evidence can be Of no avail to
tabsh that ihe written authority was intended TO
apply TO a judgment to which the writing upon its
face in certain, and GistLAetivs pGrHULlr,
latCs.
An application Of these rules to the auth o,ity in
the present case and the extrinsio evidence give1
and proposed TO be given, and excluded By the
Court, will, we think, show that the d feDd8nt in
error was bound as siayor in the case.
The suhJrily vas certainly not void upon its
fare
1t described the debt ss about four hundred dol
lars in favor of Letsey Cannon against JOAN NJ.
Warner, in the hands of c. A. Warner, aud evident
ly referred to a debt in judgment, before justice
of the peace by the name Of GLIbreath; for il can
have no other meaning.
Now, who would say, that if the extraneous evil
dence had a safe of facts corresponding in every
particular. with the written authority in the per-
sons amount and justies referred to, it invalid
ss An authority? We thi1k
The question thea is, does the ex evidence
sustain the description in the written authority
with sufficient certsiny And We think ii deeS-
In the two cases before reierrtd to, there Was no
reference Whatever, in the Wrii &, 20 the amount
of the debt orGu1gment to Le stsyei. Hsre 1t is
described about $500; and it is shOWn by the
proof to be $40 Sc Tnis latter gum We think,
may be embraced within the power. In Brown
Weir, Sarg & RoWle, 40I, where debt was de-
scribed IN assignment as about Sll 900, which
Wss, in fact, upwards Of Sl3 OOO il was held, the
trust included the latter sum. And TO the same eff
feet, Dedhsm Bank vs. Richards, Metcalf, los.
Burrill on Assignments, 252.
Here the plaintiff, Lstsy Cannon, and the defend
ant, John NJ. Warner, are accurately described.
The judgment is shoHn TO have been before VIII
liam Gabresth, justice Of the peace of Bedford
county, and that there was no o:her judgment,
Justice 10 which the writing could refer And il is
also further Unidentified by the fact, that this claim
was in the hands OF G a. Warner, a deputy sheriff
Of b, ,dtord county, Tor collection.
But it is said, that though the debt was against
John NJ Warner, yet it was also against two addi-
tionsl parties, to wit, Rulledga and Kimbro not
mentioned in the authority This is trur; but they
we're merely sRdOrssTS, and he the principal debtor
And besides, he could stay il without them; and il
was, no doubt. regarded his debt Moreover
this objection IS held, in billiard vs.. Asksn and
Lancaster, 9 Hum. 5S6, TO have nothing ia it.
II
dered the llth aud the authority for the stay is
the goth of July; but judgment may be stayed at
any time before it is paid, or execution issued, By
the plaintiffs consent 10 Hump 272
It is finally said, the suthori y, upon its face,
fers 10 q debt not in Judgment ia The hands Of @ A.
Warner and that in fact, this debt then iu ildg
ment, and not 10 the hands of Warner; and 50 not
within the authority But this is n5t the true eon>
struction of the authority. Il eviienily embraced
tks debt whether in judgment or rot. And We know
tha' when claim is placed with otieer for col
lecti n, it lie universally understood to remain In
his hands, and ubder his management, until the
money is collected and paid over TO the creditor
We think, therefore, that il appears with sufi-
cient certanty that this the judgment which
the defendant in error, Trail, intended 10 stay.
Judgment reversed and cause remauded.
WRIGHT.
A correct copy }. P. CLARK, Clerk
Geo. ,. McWhirter and others Marx r. CoekriH.
This is a contested ROAD case The plrinuds CT