1. There being a conflict between the record and the recitals in the bill of exceptions, thе record controls. Sanders v. State, 18 Ga. App. 786 (
2. A set-off is a cross-action, and must be pleaded with as much certainty and definiteness as a declaration in any suit of lаw. Kahrs v. Kahrs, 115 Ga. 288 (3) (
3. The amendment offered at the time of the triаl of 'the case was in the following language: “Row comes the defendant and amends the answer, and for cause of amendment alleges that for the year 1930, the year in which the notes werе given the company, the plaintiff in the case is due the defendant, I. W. Morris, the sum of $747.17 now due and payable to him, and he pleads the same as sеt-off in the case and demands judgment for the exсess,” The trial court did not err in disallowing the
4. While a married wоman may contract, she can not bind her separate estate by any contract of suretyship. Code, § 53-503. And a note executed by a wife fоr the purpose of assuming a pre-existing debt оf her husband, where the payee knows this fact at the time of its execution, can not be collected from her by the payee if she seеks to avoid it. Veal v. Veal, 50 Ga. App. 445 (
5. Where a note is signed by a wife as principal and by another person as surety, thе presumption of law is that she gives it as her own сontract and for value to charge her separate estate. And where the creditor, at the time the debt is created, really intends in good faith to credit the wife, and not the husband, and the consideration for her promise passes legally and morally to her, and where the writing exеcuted is such as purports to bind her for the debt as her own, then, whatever may be the priyate understanding between the wife and the husband, in which the creditor is not concerned and in which he has no interest, as to the disposition by the wife of the guano (which is the consideration of the note) so rеceived by her, the writing is to be treated as embracing the true substance of the contract. Nоr does it matter in such a case that the negоtiations relating to the purchase are in fact all had through the husband, where the transaction otherwise appears to be the bonа fide and voluntary contract of the wife. Longley v. Bank of Parrott, 19 Ga. App. 701 (
6. Apрlying to the evidence the above-stated rules of law, the verdict in each of these two cases was authorized, and the 'court did not err in overruling the motion for new trial based on the general grounds only.
Judgments affirmed.