
    Robbins & Savage v. Love.
    T > From Cumberland. J
    “A. being- indebted to B. in the-sum of @1000, conveys to B. a house and lot, to satisfy the debt, and the consideration in the deed is expressed to be one thousand dollars ; B. sues A. for the debt: held that A. may shew the consideration of the conveyance, for it does not contradict any averment in the deed, but is evidence of a distinct fact.”
    Action for goods, wares and merchandize, sold and delivered.—A witness proved the sale of the articles, and that there remained due, on such sale, one thousand dollars. The Defendant offered, in evidence, a deed of bargain and sale, made by him to the Plaintiffs, for a house and lot, in consideration of the sum of one thousand dollars. The Defendant proposed to prove, by Plaintiffs’ witness, who was a subscribing witness to the deed, that it was made to, and accepted by the Plaintiffs, in payment of the goods sold j but the Court refused to hear the testimony, because it would contradict the written agreement in the deed, which stated the consideration to be money, not goods, wares and merchandize; and a verdict was rendered for Plaintiffs, for $ 100Q, with interest and costs. A new trial having been refused and judgment rendered, Defendant appealed.
   Hall, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the Court:

When, originally, the Defendant received the goods from the Plaintiffs, he became their debtor to the amount of one thousand dollars, and, for and in consideration of that one thousand dollars, it was agreed that the house and lot should be conveyed to the Plaintiffs by the Defendant. There was, certainly, a thousand dollars in the hands of the Defendant, belonging to the Plaintiffs, when the deed was executed. The Defendant acknowledges that he has received that sum from them. I can see no objection to the enquiry, how that thousand dollars came into the Defendant’s hands; whether the Plaintiffs paid it to him, or whether it was the price of property which they let him have, or how otherwise. It is clear he had it, and ow'ed it to them; and I cannot think it is contradicting the deed to shew that it came into his hands, as the price of goods sold to him.

Again, the simple contract was, that the Defendant should convey the house and lot to the Plaintiffs for <§ 1000, which he owed them for goods sold to him ; accordingly the deed has been executed, conveying the house and lot to them, and the consideration therein set forth, is 1000 dollars. I think, the Defendant is at liberty to prove the contract; that it was agreed that the conveyance of the house and lot should be a discharge of the debt due, for goods sold, notwithstanding the only consideration set forth in the deed, was one thousand dollars. It is no contradiction of the deed, but it is proving a distinct fact. Let a new trial be granted.  