
    HALL v. WORLEY, administrator.
    August 18, 1896.
    Complaint on note. Before Judge Reese. Elbert superior court. September term, 1895.
    J. N. Hall sued the administrator of Mrs. E. 0. Hanes, deceased, upon a promissory note for $1,210 “for purchase money of land,” dated February 9, 1889, due December 25, 1889, and signed by E. C. TIanes and 0. 0. Hanes. Defendant pleaded, tbat Mrs. E. 0. Hanes signed tbe note as security for 0. 0. Hanes, who was her husband, and tbat tbe consideration of tibe note was money borrowed by 0. 0. Hanes, and there was no consideration moving or justifying tbe signature of E. 0. Hanes thereto, save tbe suretyship for ber husband. At tbe trial, after introduction of tbe note, 0. 0. Hanes testified for tbe defendant, tbat be borrowed tbe money for which tbe note sued on was given, and bis wife signed it as security and at bis request; tbat be once went to plaintiff to borrow this money, and be refused to let witness have it, and be bad Seymour to go and see plaintiff who afterwards let him have it. Seymour testified, that be went to see plaintiff and told 'him if be would let C. C. Hanes have tbe money, bis wife would secure him by deed to ber land. In rebuttal plaintiff testified: I never did let 0. 0. Hanes have any money. He came to me to get money and I refused to let him have it. I never bad any dealings with C. 0. Hanes .at all. I didn’t let him have any of tbe money for which the note sued on was given. Fie bad nothing to do with it, except to sign with bis wife as her security. He owned sojne of the land deeded to me to secure this note. I loaned the money to buy part of this land with; my money bought it. I did not let 0. 0. Hanes have any money. The land my money paid for in part never was in the estate of Mrs. Hanes. I have a deed to tbe land my money went into, to secure tbe payment of this note.
   Atkinson, J.

The action being against the administrator of a married woman upon a promissory note signed by herself and her ¡husband, the defense to which was that she signed as surety only, and the evidence being conflicting as to whether in executing the note she contracted as a surety or as a principal in her own name and right, it was error to direct a verdict for the defendant. Judgment reversad.

Tbe court ruled out the testimony of plaintiff, and directed a verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff excepted.

G. A. Worley, for plaintiff.  