Ohleyer v. Bernheim Bros. & Uri

Citations

• 67 Miss. 75

Syllabus

<p>1. Consideration. Evidence. Writing.</p> <p>Showing want of consideration of a hill of exchange is not objectionable as varying the terms of a written contract. Cocke v. Blackbourn, 57 Miss. 689, cited.</p> <p>2. Same. Promise to pay debt of another. Sufficiency of plea.</p> <p>In a suit by the payees (being also the drawers) of a time hill of exchange a plea by the defendant, the acceptor, is good which sets up in substance the following : Said acceptance was given for a debt already due plaintiffs by a third person, and not by defendant, and defendant did not promise to pay this debt when made nor request plaintiffs to give the credit; the acceptance was not given in consideration of forbearance to the said debtor; nor was there any agreement to release said debtor; nor was any security given up in consideration of said acceptance; nor did defendant receive any benefit or advantage from said indebtedness or acceptance ; nor have plaintiffs suffered any detriment from said acceptance ; there was no consideration for said acceptance. It is error to sustain a demurrer to such a plea.</p>