
    HARRISON SELF v. JACOB HARMON.
    (S. C., Thomp. Cas., 129-131.)
    Knoxville,
    September Term, 1858.
    1. MOTION. Surety against principal.
    The stayor of a justice’s judgment against a principal and surety which was satisfied by the joint note of the said stayor and surety, is not entitled to a judgment over against such surety in the judgment, upon the ground that he was in fact one of the principals as a partner with the other principal, though appearing on the original note and judgment as surety. [This case does not show that a judgment had been rendered on the note given in satisfaction of the stayed judgment, nor that it was paid by the plaintiff, but such was probably the fact. For motions in favor of sureties, etc., see Code, sees. 5385-5401, and notes.]
    2. WRITTEN INSTRUMENT. Farol evidence inadmissible to vary.
    Parol evidence is inadmissible in such case to show that the surety on the original note was a partner with the principal maker, and that such note was given for goods which went into their partnership business. TOn this subject, see Meigs’ Dig., sec. 1430.]
    3. SAME. Reformed in equity.
    A written instrument, if wrong upon its face, can only be reformed in equity upon am allegation of fraud, mistake, or other ground of equity. [See on this question, August v. Seeskind, 6 Cold., 189 (syl. 9, p. 167); Wallace v. Goodlet, 9 Pickle, 598; Leavitt v. Palmer, 3 N. Y. 19; Johnson v. Johnson, 8 Bax. 261; Perry v. Pearson, 1 Hum., 431, 439; Bailey v. Bailey, 8 Hum., 230, 233; Davidson v. Greer, 3 Sneed, 384; Wood v. Goodrich, 9 Yer., 266; Barnes v. Greg'ory, 1 Head, 236; Williams v. Conrad, 11 Hum., 415; Comparree r. Brockway, 11 Hum., 357; Talley v. Courtney, 1 Heis., 715; McClelland v. Payne, 16 Lea, 712; Deakins v. Alley, 9 Lea, 494.]
    This was a motion in the circuit court of Greene county, made by Harrison Self, as security, against Jacob Harmon, as principal.
    On the trial the record of the proceedings in the case of C. Haun vs. Thomas Self and Jacob Harmon,' and on which that suit was founded, was read to the jury.
    This note showed upon its face that Harmon was surety for Thomas Self. It appeared that Harrison Self became security for the stay of execution on this judgment, and that the note on which this motion was based, was given by Harrison Self and Harmon, in satisfaction of said judgment.
    The defendant insisted that as between Harrison Self, as stay or, and'Jacob Harmon, as security, the primary liability was upon Self. To avoid this, plaintiff offered to prove that the note given by Thomas Self and Harmon was, in fact, for a partnership purchase, and a joint debt.
    This evidence was excluded by the court below.
   McKinney, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

There is no error in this record of which the plaintiff in error is entitled to* avail himself in this court. The mere fact offered to be proved, that Thomas Self and Jacob Harmon were partners at the time of, and previous to, the execution of the bill signed by them to Haun, and that it was given for goods which went into the partnership business, if it were admissible evidence, and had been received, would not sustain the plaintiff's motion. But, we think, the; evidence offered to show that Jacob Harmon executed the note to Haun as a partner was wholly inadmissible, because it is directly contradictory of what is imported on the face of the note. The instrument, if wrong upon its face, could only ha.ve been reformed in equity, upon an allegation of fraud, mistake, or other ground of equity. And this principle stands in the way of the plaintiff — whose interest, if any, arose after the execution of the bill single, to liaun— quite as much as in the way of Thomas Self. But if this objection were obviated, there are other insuperable objections in the way of the plaintiff.

Judgment affirmed.  