Lumpkin, P. J.
The headnote filed in this case requires no elaboration. It has often been held that the words “for value received,” in a promissory note, are ambiguous and open to explanation by parol. It is beyond doubt allowable for the defendant in an action upon such a note to set forth by a proper plea what was the real consideration, and allege facts showing that it failed in whole or in part. Permitting this can in no
Page 171
sense be regarded as allowing the defendant to vary by parol the terms of a valid written instrument. Taking as true the allegations of the plea, it set forth a defense to the plaintiff’s action, and it was therefore error to strike it on the ground^ specified, viz.: “that it sought by parol to vary the contract sued on and add to its terms a condition not therein expressed.”
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concurring.