
    Adams v. Thomas.
    
      Action on Promissory Note.
    
    
      tbnsideraiion of note variant from that expressed in it; what can not he proved. — • In an action on a promissory note which expresses that it was given for certain described lands, it is not permissible to show by parol that the note was given upon an entirely different consideration — e. g , as in piayment of a debt.
    Appeal from Circuit Court of Clay.
    Tried before Hon. 0. Pelham.
    
      Appellant, Adams, sued the appellee, Thomas, on a promissory note made by defendant, for four hundred and twenty-five dollars, which showed on its face that it was given for a “part of the northwest quarter section twenty-one, range seven, township twenty-one, known as the residence now occupied by Mrs. Clayton, containing thirty-five acres, more or less.”
    A trial was had on plea of the general issue, with leave to give in evidence any matter which might be specially pleaded.
    The defendant, against the objection and exception of the plaintiff, was permitted to introduce testimony that the note sued on was given in consideration of an indebtedness of defendant to the estate of one Clayton, deceased, evidenced by a note which was taken up when the note in suit was executed ; that Adams claimed to have a mortgage on certain lands, made by one Oonant, which lands Clayton formerly occupied, and had traded to Coker for the lands described in the note; that it was agreed between plaintiff and Coker that plaintiff should satisfy the Conant mortgage, and Coker would execute a conveyance to defendant for the lands described in the note; that Mrs. Clayton would give up to defendant a note he had made to Clayton for $425.00, and that plaintiff should then take from defendant the note sued on.”
    There was a verdict and judgment for the defendant. Adams appeals, and assigns for error the admission of the foregoing testimony, and several charges given by the court, which need not be further noticed.
    Stone & Clopton, for appellant.
    Taul Bradford, contra.
    
   BRICKELL, C. J.

The note on which the suit is founded is perfect and- complete, expressing as its consideration that it is given “for value received in the following described parcel of land,” describing it. It was not permissible for the defendant, by parol evidence, to prove that it was made on a different consideration.—Chitty on Bills, 70; West v. Kelly, 19 Ala. 353 ; Evans v. Bell, 20 Ala. 509; Hair v. Lee Brown, 10 Ala. 548 ; Beard v. White, 1 Ala. 436. The circuit court was, therefore, in error in permitting the defendant to introduce evidence that the consideration of the note was variant from that expressed. The first, second, fourth, fifth and sixth charges given by the court, are based on the evidence improperly admitted, and are, of consequence, erroneous. In the present aspect of the case, it can not well be determined whether the third and seventh charges, if they assert correct legal propositions, are pertinent to the issue involved.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded.  