
    Louis A. Powell vs. Friley Jones.
    A holding the note of B, passed it to C, receiving in lieu thereof C’s bond for the like amount; held in an action by A against C, on the latter’s bond, that the consideration of the bond-was but an exchange of credits, and was not illegal.
    And that it was not competent for C to show by parol, that his bond which purported to be absolute on its face, was only to be paid in the event he (C) could use the note of B in a suit which he expected B to bring against him ; and that he had failed in using it in that suit; this would be contradicting the bond by parol.
    In error from the circuit court of Attala county; Hon. Robert C. Perry, judge.
    Friley Jones sued Louis A. Powell on a bond or bill single for $9L26, dated 19th of January, 1841, and due one day after date.
    
      The defendant plead in substance, 1. That the obligation on which the suit was based, was given by Powell to Jones for a note on one John Pierce for the same amount, which note, “ at the time of giving said writing obligatory, was, and still is, utterly worthless; the maker being then and still wholly insolvent.5'
    To this plea Jones demurred. The demurrer was sustained, and a judgment of respondeat ouster awarded.
    The defendant then pleaded in substance, that the writing sued on was given for a note on John Pierce, which arrangement was made on condition that Powell could make, it available in his defence in a certain action at law brought in the name of said Pierce for the use of Lewis G. Bryant against said Powell; but that he could not make it available, the note having been ruled out on the trial, and by reason thereof the note became utterly worthless, and the consideration of the writing wholly failed.
    On this plea the plaintiff took issue.
    By leave of the court the defendant filed another plea, in which he sets up in substance, that the writing obligatory was given for an illegal consideration; having been given for a note on Pierce, upon condition that defendant Powell could make said note available as a defence in a suit expected to be brought by Pierce for the use of Lewis G. Bryant, “ being for the maintenance of said Powell against Pierce, use, &c.,. Jones not being a party to that suit, nor in any way interested therein.”
    Upon this plea the plaintiff took issue.
    There were two trials, and verdicts for defendants, but set aside. On the last, the defendant offered to prove that the writing obligatory sued on was given to Jones, for the accommodation of plaintiff, for a note of the same amount on Pierce, held by Jones, and upon the express condition that Powell could make the note on Pierpe, available in a suit expected to be brought against Powell by Pierce, who was then and yet insolvent. The defendant also offered to prove that suit was brought, and that he attempted to use this note, but failed; he also offered the record of this suit; all of which was ruled out by the court. The defendant excepted, and upon the verdict for plaintiff prosecuted this writ of error.
    
      Charles Scott, for plaintiff in error,
    Cited Story on Cont. 131, 132, § 328; Hutch. Dig. 640, 641.
    
      FI. A. H. Lawson, for defendant in error,
    Cited 2 Kent, Comm. 478; Heaverin v. Donnell, 7 S. & M. - 244; and authorities cited; Story on Prom. Notes, 26, 27; 10 Barn. & Ores. 729 ; 21 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 156; Thallhimer v. Brinckerhoff, 3 Cow. Rep. 643.
   Mr. Justice Clayton

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action upon a bill single for the sum of $91-26. The plea upon which the defence rests, states that the bill single was given for an illegal consideration, in this, that it was given for a note on “one John Pierce, for the same amount with this bill single, due to said Friley Jones, on condition that the defendant could make said note available for his defence in a suit expected to be brought by said Pierce against said defendant; being for the maintenance of said Powell against said Pierce in said suit.” The jury found for the plaintiff.

We cannot see any illegality in this transaction. So far as appears, it was an exchange of credits, to which there is no legal objection, if in other respects fair.

Nor was there any error in the rejection of the testimony offered by defendant in support of his plea. Parol evidence to vary or contradict the bill single was not admissible. Heaverin v. Donnell, 7 S. & M, 244; 21 Eng. Com. Law Rep. 156; 1 Ph. Ev. 548.

Judgment affirmed.  