HENDRICK v. HENDRICK, 1 Tenn. 265 (1808)

Superior Court for Law and Equity, Mero District.
May 1808.

Upon plea of non est factum to a bond for the delivery of corn, proof of the parol acknowledgment of the defendant that he owed the plaintiff the quantity of corn specified, without saying he owed it by bond, is inadmissible to establish the bond.

Covenant upon a bond for the delivery of 200 bushels of corn at a particular place. Plea, non est

Page 266

factum. The defendant had confessed he owed the plaintiff a quantity of corn, and the witness said he believed it was 200 bushels, but did not state how he owed it, whether by bond or otherwise.

By the Court.

The issue here is whether the defendant executed the bond or not; the evidence offered is entirely persuasive and not relevant. If the defendant had said he owed the plaintiff 200 bushels of corn by bond, the evidence would be admissible.[1]