
    Cloud v. Patterson.
    Parol evidence cannot be admitted to shew a contract of sale of land, when there is written, and consequently better evidence.
    James Patterson brought an action of assumpsit against Samuel G. Cloud, in the Circuit Court of Cone-cuh county, to recover on a note made by Cloud on the 4th May, 1824, for ¡¡¡5650, payable to Patterson or bearer on the 1st of January thereafter. The defendant pleaded nonassumpsit, want of consideration, and failure of consideration. There was a verdict for the plaintiff and judgement.
    On the trial, the defendant tendered a bill of exceptions as follows, which was sealed by the Court: “ In this case the defendant introduced parol evidence to prove that the note on which the plaintiff had commenced his action, was given in part for a house and lot in the town of Sparta. The defendant then offered to prove that the house and lot had been sold as the property of James Spann, who had originally owned it. He was here stopped by the Court, who decided that it was incumbent on the defendant to produce the written evidence of the sale, which was admitted to have been executed from Patterson, the plaintiff, to Cloud, the defendant; to which defendant excepts,” &c.
    The cause was submitted on the error assigned by Cloud, which was, that the Court erred in rejecting the testimony as stated in the bill of exceptions.
   By JUDGE WHITE.

The question is, whether the Court erred in the opinion given on the trial as stated ? We think not. There ivas written, and therefore, superior evidence of the contract of sale admitted to exist, than that offered by the defendant below. Hence it was right to exclude the latter, until the nonproduction of the former was accounted for in a way recognized by law. Let the judgement be affirmed. ■

Note. See Minor’s Ala. Rep. 410, 71, 257Í 270v

Shortridge and Ellis, for the plaintiff.

Parsons, for defendant.

Judge Saeeold not sitting.  