
    David Ridley, plaintiff in error, vs. Ford & Giddens, defendants in error,
    Plaintiffs holding note nnAfi.fa. in pawn for payment for a coat sold to tlie holder, is not entitled to recover the money against the maker ofthe note and defendant in fi.fa., if there was a prior contract between the parties that the debt should be paid in corn, and the corn was delivered in payment. If the contract was subsequent to the delivery ofthe papers in pawn, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the value ofthe coat and nothing more. If the verdict of the jury was not against the weight of evidence, it ought not to he disturbed.
    
      Certiorari, from Worth county. Decision by Judge Powers, at October Term, 1857.
    One Spencer Brown, being indebted to Ford & Giddens, traded or transferred to them in payment of his debt, a promissory note which he held on David Ridley, for about twenty-eight dollars, and also a fi. fa. against him, issued from a Justice’s Court, for about twenty-six dollars.
    Ford & Giddens sued Ridley on the note in a Justice’s Court, and had the fi. fa. levied on his property.
    Ridley filed illegality to the fi.fa., and plead payment as to the note. Both issues came on to be tried at the same time? when Ridley proved that he had agreed to let Brown have com in payment of them; that he delivered one turn of corn to Brown’s widow, Brown having died, when Giddens notified him not to pay the corn, as he should not give up the papers; and that he had delivered the residue to his widow 5 and that he had thereby fully paid of and satisfied both the note and fi. fa.
    
    The Justices gave judgment for the defendant Ridley in both cases, and upon appeal, the jury found for him on the note, and sustained the illegality to the fi. fa. Whereupon, Ford & Giddens sued out a certiorari and had the causes certified, for review and correction, to the Superior Court
    Upon the hearing before Judge Powers, he remanded the cases, with orders to the Justices to enter judgment for Ford & Giddens,|for the amount of the note, and counsel for Ridley excepted.
    R. H. Clark, for plaintiff in error.
    Jno. B. Golding, contra.
    
   McDonald, J.

By the Court. delivering the opinion

The plaintiffs sold one Spencer Brown a coat, for which he was to give them a note on some third person. He had delivered to Giddens, one of the plaintiffs, a note and fi. fa. on the defendant in the Court below, who is plaintiff in error here, to be handed to a collecting officer, and told Giddens at the same time, that if he never brought him any other note, he was safe any bow, that he couldkeep the note and fi. fa. Giddens, in a conversation with Garry G. Ford, told him that he had the note and fi. fa., and if Ridley would make him safe for the payment of the coat bought by Brown, he would give up the papers. Giddens afterwards refused to do it, and elaimed to hold them in pawn for what Brown owed him. It does not appear at what time the contract was made between Ridley and Brown when the latter agreed to receive-the corn in payment. If it was prior to the time that Brown agreed to let the plaintiffs keep the papers in pawn for payment for the coat, the delivery of the corn according to the contract, was a payment of both fi. fa. and note; if subsequently, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover the value of the coat and no more. There was no evidence of the value of the coat before the jury. It is not so manifest that the verdict of the jury was decidedly against the weight of evidence, as to entitle the plaintiffs to a new trial; and it is clear that they are not entitled to a judgment for the twenty-eight dollars.

Judgment reversed.  