
    J. A. King, Plaintiff in Error, v. E. B. McConnell, Defendant in Error.
    
    Giving a note for an existing debt is not a payment of the debt, unless the note is received under an express agreement that it is a payment, or under circumstances from which an agreement may be fairly inferred to regard the note as payment, or unless payment in fact is made.
    This case was decided by Division B.
    Writ of Error to the Circuit Court for Alachua County.
    The facts in the case are stated in the opinion of the court.
    
      R. E. Davis, for Plaintiff in Error;
    No appearance for Defendant in Error.
   Whitfield, C. J.

Giving a note for an existing-debt is not a payment of the debt, unless the note is received under an express agreement that it is a payment, or under circumstances from which an agreement may be fairly inferred to regard the note as payment, or unless payment in fact is-made. See May v. Gamble, 14 Fla. 467; Salomon v. Pioneer Co-operative Co., 21 Fla. 374; Frank v. Williams, 36 Fla. 136, 18 South. Rep. 351.

The questions excluded by the court do not indicate that a note was given with an express or implied agreement that it was to be regarded as payment of the debt; and in the absence of a showing that the materiality and relevancy of the questions would be duly made to appear in the course of the trial the court did not err in sustaining the objections made to the questions. The indebtedness was proven without dispute and the affirmative charge was not erroneous.

The judgment is affirmed.

Shackleford and Cockrell, JJ., concur;

Taylor, Hocker and Parkhill, JJ., concur in the opinion.  