
    9559.
    Sorrells v. Fitzpatrick Company.
    Decided May 14, 1918.
    Complaint; from city court of Madison—Judge Anderson. January 28, 1918.
    The H. H. Fitzpatrick Company brought suit .against Sorrells for $198.40 principal, and $95.22 interest, alleging that the debt was evidenced by a promissory note, a copy of which was attached to the petition. The copy attached was of a note for $225 principal, besides interest, and in the same instrument was a mortgage on certain crops. The court, over the objection of the defendant, 'allowed an amendment changing the principal of the note to $725. A note described in the amendment as “the original note sued on” was attached to it, and the petition as amended showed certain credits thereon, amounting to $537.51. The amendment was demurred to on the ground that it added a new and distinct cause of action. At' the trial the original note attached to the amendment was introduced in evidence, and the secretary of the plaintiff corporation testified: “The note sued on was not given in liquidation or settlement of any account or for value received at the time it was given. Value had been in part received, inasmuch as part of the account had been made at the time the note was given. It was given to secure that and a future account still to be made. I do not know how much of the account had been made. Nothing was said'about that. It was just a mortgage note we are in the habit of taking to secure an account when We run anybody. It was not in whole for what he bought or what he was going to buy. The note don't show Avhat lie bought or what he owed us. We had to go to the account to ascertain that.” There was no further evidence. The defendant moved that a verdict be directed in his favor, “on the ground that the testimony. showed that the note Avas not given in liquidation and settlement of an account owed, nor for a present or past Araluable consideration, but in part at least for a future valuable consideration; and on the further ground that the note itself did not and could not show the indebtedness of defendant to plaintiff, but recourse to the account as stated on the books of plaintiff was necessary to ascertain the alleged indebtedness, and that therefore there could be no judgment on 'the note, said indebtedness being on account.” This motion was overruled, and a motion to dismiss the suit was also overruled, and the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted, .assigning error on each of the rulings stated.
   Broyles, P. J.

1. There was no error in overruling the demurrer to the ’ amendment to the original petition.

2. Under the evidence and the pleadings the court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant, or in refusing to dismiss the'suit, or in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.

Bloodworth and Harwell, JJ., concur.

E. H. George, for plaintiff in err,or.

M. 0. Few, contra.  