30LARSON v. JENSEN, 53 Mich. 427, 19 N. W. 130, Throckmorton, Cas. Contracts, 60; Hartley v. Varner, 88 111. 561; Nelson v. Boynton, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 396, 37 Am. Dec. 148; Greene v. Burton, 59 Vt. 423, 10 Atl. 575; Geelan v. Reid, 22 111. App. 165; Higgins v. Hallock, 60 Hun, 125, 14 N. Y. Supp. 550; Boston v. Farr, 148 Pa. 220, 23 Atl. 901; Crowder v. Keys, 91 Ga. L80, 16 S. E. 986; Burns v. Bradford-Kennedy Lumber Co., 61 Wash. 276, 112 Pac. 359. The same is true where a person says: "If I am to do certain work for M., I must be assured of payment by some one," and the person addressed says, "Do it, and I will see you paid." Mountstephen v. Lakeman, within the statute depends on how the credit was given. If it was given exclusively to the promisor, his undertaking is original;31 but it is collateral if any credit was given to the other party.32 So an oral acceptance of a bill of exchange or other order for the payment of money is not within the statute, for the reason that the acceptor becomes the party primarily liable on the instrument.33

(b) Even though there is an existing liability of a third person for which the promisor undertakes to answer, still the promise is not within the statute if the terms are such that it effects an extinguishment of such liability; in other words, the liability of the original debtor must continue. A promise to pay another's debt in consideration of the creditor's doing something which will extinguish his claim against the debtor, and release him absolutely,

L R. 7 H. L. 17. And see cases cited above and in the following notes. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 23; Cent. Dig. §§ 18, 19.

31 Chase v. Day, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 114; Hartley v. Varner, 88 111. 561; Myer v. Grafflin, 31 Md. 350, 100 Am. Dec. 66; Grant v. Wolf, 34 Minn. 32, 24 N. W. 2S9; Ellis v. Murray, 77 Ga. 542; Hagadorn v. Stronach Lumber Co., 81 Mich. 56, 45 N. W. 650; Peyson v. Conniff, 32 Neb. 269, 49 N. W. 340; Mackey v. Smith, 21 Or. 598, 28 Pac. 974; Herendeen Mfg. Co. v. Moore, 66 N. J. Law, 74, 48 Atl. 525; Lusk v. Throop, 189 111. 127, 59 N. E. 529. Where defendant gave plaintiff directions to give his (defendant's) subcontractors material, and charge it to them, which was done, and every month he (defendant) would pay the bill, it was held not to show that credit was given the subcontractors, and that the undertaking was original. Maurin v. Fogelberg, 37 Minn. 23, 32 N. W. 858, 5 Am. St. Rep. 814. And see Owen v. Stevens, 78 111. 462; Schoen-feld v. Brown, 78 111. 487. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 26; Cent. Dig. §§ 35-42 1/2

32 Birkmyr v. Darnell, 2 Ld. Raym. 1085, Mod. 248, 3 Salk. 27, Holt 606, 92 Eng. Reprint, 219, 1 Sm. L. C. (11th Ed.) 299; Welch v. Marvin, 36 Mich. 59; Cahill v. Bigelow, 18 Pick. (Mass.) 369; Norris v. Graham, 33 Md. 56; Northern Cent. Ry. Co. v. Prentiss, 11 Md. 119; Aldrich v. Jewell, 12 Vt 125, 36 Am. Dec. 330; Matthews v. Milton, 4 Yerg. (Tenn.) 576, 26 Am. Dec. 247; Baldwin v. Hiers, 73 Ga. 739; Blank v. Dreher, 25 111. 331; Langdon v. Richardson, 58 Iowa, 610, 12 N. W. 622; Bugbee v. Kendricken, 130 Mass. 437; Mead v. Watson, 57 Vt. 426; Studley v. Barth, 54 Mich. 6, 19 N. W. 568; Robertson v. Hunter, 29 S. C. 9, 6 S. E. 850; Harris v. Frank, 81 Cal. 2S<>. 22 Pac. 856; Rottmann v. Pohlmann, 28 Mo. App. 399; Clark v. Jones, 87 Ala. 474, 6 South. 362; Waters v. Shafer, 25 Neb. 225, 41 N. W. 181; Swaboda v. Throgmorton-Bruce Co., 88 Ark. 592, 115 S. W. 380; Johnson v. Bank, 60 W. Va. 320, 55 S. E. 394, 9 Ann. Cas. 893, and note; Wood v. Dodge, 23 S. D. 95, 120 N. W. 774; Peele v. Powell, 156 N. C. 553, 73 S. E. 234. The question whether the promise is original or collateral is usually one for the jury, under instructions from the court. Johnson v. Bank, supra; McGowan Commercial Co. v. Midland Coal & Lumber Co., 41 Mont 211, 108 Pac. 655. Sec "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 26; Cent. Dig. §§ 85-42 1/2.

33 Edward Hines Lumber Co. v. Anderson, 141 111. App. 527. See ante, p. 77. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Big. (Key-No.) § 27; Cent. Dig. §§ 43, 44

(c) The promise must contemplate payment by the promisor out of his own property, or, at least, not out of the property of the debtor, from which, or from the proceeds of which, the promisor is under a duty to pay, or is authorized to pay; for in such a case the payment is, in effect, by the debtor.86 The statute has no application to "cases where the original debtor places property of any kind in the hands of a third person, and that person promises to pay the claims of a particular creditor of the debtor. The promise, in such case, is an original promise, and the property placed in his hands is its consideration. In this class of cases it is immaterial whether the liability of the original debtor continues or not."37

34 Bird v. Gammon, 2 Bins. N. C. 883; Anstey v. Marden, 1 B. & P. New Rep. 124; Goodman v. Chase, 1 Barn. & Ald. 297; Peeters v. Lamborn, 43 Ohio St. 144, 1 N. E. 513; Andre v.Bodman, 13 Md. 241, 71 Am. Dec. 628; Meriden Britannia Co. v. Zingsen, 48 N. Y. 247, 8 Am. Rep. 549; Runde v. Runde, 59 111. 98; Green v. Solomon, 80 Mich. 234, 45 N. W. 87; Carlisle v. Campbell, 76 Ala. 247; Palmer v. Witcherly, 15 Neb. 98, 17 N. W. 364; Eden v. Chaffee. 160 Mass. 225, 35 N. E. 675; Hamlin v. Drummond, 91 Me. 175, 39 Atl. 551; Ferst v. Bank, 111 Ga. 229, 36 S. E. 773; Hanson v. Nelson, 82 Minn. 220, 84 N. W. 742. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 31; Cent. Dig. §§ 47, 48.

35 Nelson v. Boynton, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 396, 37 Am. Dec. 148; Waggoner v. Gray's Adm'rs, 2 Hen. & M. (Va.) 612; Pfaff v. Cummings, 67 Mich. 143, 34 N. W. 281; Gray v. Herman, 75 Wis. 453, 44 N. W. 248, 6 L. R. A. 691; Murto v. McKnight, 28 111. App. 238; Miller v. Lynch, 17 Or. 61, 19 Pac. 845; Brant v. Johnson, 46 Kan. 389, 26 Pac. 735; Riegelman v. Focht, 141 Pa. 380, 21 Atl. 601, 23 Am. St. Rep. 293; Greene v. Latcham, 2 Colo. App. 416, 31 Pac. 233. The fact that a lien against the original debtor is released has been held immaterial if the debtor himself remains liable. Nelson v. Boynton, supra; Mallory v. Gillett, 21 N. Y. 412. See post, p. 87. A promise to pay anotber's debt merely if the promisee will forbear to sue the debtor, which he does, is within the statute. Gump v. Halberstadt, 15 Or. 356, 15 Pac. 467 (collecting cases on this point); Watson v. Randall, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 201; White v. Rin-toul, 108 N. Y. 222, 15 N. E. 318. And see Keadle v. Siddens, 5 Ind. App. 8. 31 N. E. 539; Dillaby v. Wilcox, 60 Conn. 71, 22 Atl. 491, 13 L. R. A. 643, 25 Am. St. Rep. 299; Parker v. Dillingham, 129 Ind. 542, 29 N. E. 23. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 81; Cent. Dig. §§ J,7, 48.