
    STALEY vs. MATHENY.
    The payee of a promissory note agreed with the maker that if he would take up payee’s note, held by a third person, it should be received as payment upon his. This the maker did. The maker’s «ote was transferred by the payee after it fell due : Held, That the maker was entitled to a credit by way of payment for the note of payee, which he had taken up.
    Complaint, in Lee Superior Court. Decision by Judge Perkins, at March Term, 1860.
    Matheny sued Staley on a note dated June 6th, 1855, for $370 00, payable to John C. West, or bearer, and due on the first day of January, 1856. Defendant pleaded that he had partly paid said note in this way: that John C. West, whilst he held said note, agreed if defendant would take up two notes which said West owed one Haywood for the respective sums of $51 18 and $40 08, it should be regarded as payment pro tanto of the note sued on; that defendant took up the Haywood notes as per agreement, and that the plaintiff got the note sued on after it was due.
    On the trial of the ease, plaintiff’s counsel moved the Court to strike out defendant’s said plea, which motion was granted by the Court, and defendant’s counsel excepted.
    F. H. West, for plaintiff in error.
    Greenlee Butler, for defendant.
   By the Court,

Lumpkin, J.,

delivering the opinion.

We can imagine no possible reason why the plea of payment in this case was not good. None has been assigned.  