SINGER MANCI-'g CO. V. HESTES. 805 �plaintiff, which he failed to pay. The answer an4 amended answer allege that on the sixteenth day oi May, 1872, the plaintiff and defendant Joel Hester entered into a written agreement by which said Hester was appointed agent for plaintiff for the sale of sewing machines in and for the county of Holt, in the state of Missouri, said machines to be pur- chased of the company at Chicago, at a discount of 30 per cent, from Chicago retail priees, and to be paid for in notes payable not more than six months from their date ; that said agreement was the only consideration for the execution of the bond sued on, and was part of the same transaction. It is further alleged that on the first day of May, 1873, there was a settle- ment between the company and its said agent under the agree- ment aforesaid, and that said agreement was cancelled ; and on the said first day of May, 1873, a duly-authorized agent of said company made and entered into a new and different agree- ment with Joel Hester, again appointing him agent for said company for said county, and by this second agreement the machines were to be consigned to the agent, and not sold to him, (as under the former agreement ;) that the second agreement greatly changed, altered, and increased the agent's duties, the terms of the payments and liabilities, without the consent of the sureties on said bond, whereby they were released. �These several agreements are set ont in fuU in the answer. To the original answer, which embodied the foregoing allega- tions, a demurrer was interposed by plaintiff, and the same was sustained by the court. Therefore the defendant answered further as follows : "And for further defence defendants say that on the first day of May, 1873, said plaintiff and said defendant Joel Hester entered into a new agreement with respect to the matters contained in the writing obligatory set out in plaintiff 's petition, and that, in consideration of said new agreement, and that defendant Joel Hester would exe- cute and enter into the same, the plaintiff agreed to and did release defendants from any further liability on said writing obligatory, and did then and there terminate and rescind the same; and defendants aver that no part of the indebtedness ��� �
