At thе February term, 1873, of the common pleas court of Cass county, William Chandler, the defendant in error, exhibited for allowаnce against the estate of Jehiel C. Stevenson, of which Amanda L. Stevenson, the plaintiff in error, was administratrix, a notе as follows:
ITarrisonville, Mo., November 11th, 1871.
“Eight months after date, I promise to pay to the order of Thos. E. Dutro, the sum of $808.50, for value received: negоtiable and payable without defalcation or discount, at the banking house of Wm. IT. Allen, Harrisonville, Missouri, and with interest from date at the rate of ten per cent, per annum.
(Signed,) Jehiel C. Stevenson.”
To the allowance of this demand against the estate of said Stevenson, his administratrix offered a set-off as fol- ■ lows : “ Thomas E. Dutro in account with J. C. Stevenson. To 183 lbs. bacon at 12 cents, $21.96; tо 185 lbs. lard at 12 cents, $22.20; cash received of Stevenson for house and lots, $400; cash loaned, $1,200.” Total, $1,644.16. The case was triеd before the common pleas court — probate side. The court rejected the set-off and allowed the demand in favor of the defendant in error, and against the estate of Stevenson, for the full amount claimed. The plaintiff in error appealed to the circuit court of Cass county, and from thence the case was removed by change of venue to the circuit court of Bates county, where it was tried de novo. The plaintiff’ offered in evidence the nоte presented for allowance hereinbefore copied, and an assign
“ For value received, I assign the note executed by Jehiel C. Stevenson to Thomas E. Dutro, for аbout $808.50 dated about-, and now about, or nearly due, to ¥m. Chandler, as collateral to pay a note executed by said Dutro, Chandler, and others, to one White, for about $2,000, and now nearly, or about due, this June 4th, 1872. Gr. W. Feeley will deliver said note tо said Chandler.
(Signed,) Catherine E. Dutro,
Administratrix of T. E. Dutro, deceased.”
The main and controlling question which this case presents is, does the assignment to Chandler of the note in suit> Catherine E. Dutro, administratrjx 0f qy ]£, Dutro, deceased, confer upon him the legal right thereto, and can he maintain an action thereon by virtue of it against the administrator of Stevenson who was the maker of the note. The solution of this question depеnds upon sec. 40 p. 89, 1 Wag. Stat., which provides u that executors and administrators may assign the notes and bonds of the estatе to creditors, legatees and distributees, in discharge of an amount of their claims equal to the amount of such bond or note.” This section was brought to the attention of this court in the case of Stagg v. Linnenfetser,
' " If, therefore, plaintiff Chаndler was not at the time of the assignment, embraced in one of the classes of persons designated in the section, it passed noth- . r , - , . , n mg to him, and he took no right under it. It is not pretended that he was a legatee or distributee, but it is claimed that hе was a creditor, and that the assignment was made to pay his debt. Looking at the transaction in the light shed upon it by the terms of the assignment. Chandler was neither a creditor, nor was the assignment made to pay a debt due him from the estate of Dutrо. It speaks for itself, and declares that the note was assigned “as collateral to pay a note exeсuted by Dutro, Chandler, and others to one White, for about $2,000, and now nearly or about due.” The language employed is clear and there is no such ambiguity in it as would justify resort to parol evidence to explain or remove it. It shows that at the timе of the assignment Chandler was not a creditor of Dutro’s estate but that it was assigned to him as collateral to pay а debt to White, not then due, evidenced by the joint note of Chandler, Dutro and others. In the case of Stagg v. Green,
Reversed.