
    Gates et al. v. Nobles.
    It is no answer to a plea in abatement for the court to say it is overruled.
    On a demurrer-to evidence, the court ought to determine whether the evidence is sufficient or insufficient.
    EbboR to reverse a judgment of tlie County Court in an action of assumpsit Nobles v. Cates et al. for tbe service of bis servant, demanding £8. Plea in abatement — That it was an attachment and neither the person or estate of one of the defendants had been attached. Judgment — Plea overruled.
    Defendants plead nonassumpsit. Issue to the court. The evidence was, that the defendants jointly agreed to give the plaintiff £8 for the service of his servant; that one of them gave his note for that sum to the plaintiff, which he accepted, and has since sued and recovered judgment upon it, but has got no satisfaction the debtor being a bankrupt — and this action is brought upon the original parol contract against both.
    The defendants demurred to the evidence; and the plaintiff joined in the demurrer. The County Court gave judgment that the defendants did assume and promise, and for the plaintiff to recover.
    General errors assigned.
   Judgment — Manifest error. The court ought to have answered the plea in abatement; to say it is overruled is not any proper answer. The court ought to have answered the question put in issue by the parties, viz. Whether the evidence was sufficient or not. A person’s accepting of a written security, for a parol promise from the promisor, extinguishes the parol promise; and the plaintiff having accepted a note from one of the joint promisors, the joint promise by parol was extinguished.  