
    John and Joseph Allison vs. Rutledge.
    If a guaranty upon its face be addressed to one, it cannot be given in evidence in an action brought by two.
    Parol proof cannot be introduced to show that a guaranty, which was addressed to one, was intended to be addressed to two.
    A guaranty to charge the guarantor, must contain all the material facts upon its face; and if it do not, it will be void under the statute of frauds, and cannot be aided by parol proof.
    The defendant was sued as a guarantor of Joseph Cooper, who purchased one hundred dollars worth of bacon from plaintiffs. The instrument on which it is sought to charge Rutledge, is in these words: “Blountville, April 17th, 1828. Dear Sir: Mr. Cooper has informed me -y-ou have one thousand or fifteen hundred pounds ofbacori for sale, and he wishes to purchase that amount. If you think proper, I will go in as Cooper’s security for the above amount of bacon on six months credit. Yours, &c.
    Mr. Allison. G. W. Rutledge.”
    Evidence' was given to show this letter was addressed to John Allison the elder, and not to either of the plaintiffs. This the court left to the jury to decide, but instructed, that if it was addressed to the plaintiffs, yet it was conditional until the proffer was accepted, of which plaintiffs were bound to notify the defendant, and if they had failed to do so, they could not support the action. There was no proof that notice had been given. Affidavits were introduced going to show the defendant admitted that he was notified he was held liable, and also to show surprise. On these a new trial was moved for but refused.
    
      J. A. M’Kinney) for plaintiffs in error.
    
      J. Kennedy, for the defendant in error.
   Catron, Ch. J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

Can, under any circumstances, a recovery be had in this action by force of the guaranty? It is addressed in the singular to Mr. Allison. Rutledge undertook for the debt of Cooper; is bound by the writing, and this only. The contract cannot be varied, or its meaning explained, without violating the statute of frauds. He did not address himself to two Allisons, but to one. The'paper from its face, could not be given in evidence to sustain the joint action, and it could not be proved by parol that two were meant.

The case of Grant vs. Naylor was stronger than this. There the father gave the son a letter of guaranty, addressed to John and Joseph Naylor, who failed. The firm of the Naylors consisted of John and Jeremiah. That the latter was miscalled Joseph in the address, was free from doubt. The firm extended the credit. The son became insolvent, and the father was sued. 4 Cra. 224. The court held that John and Jeremiah Naylor could not give the letter in evidence from its face, anti that parol proof could not be heard to explain it. The statute of frauds declared all such proof inadmissible. So here. Let the judgment be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  