36 Williams v. Leker, 3 Burr. 1886; Dock v. Boyd, 93 Pa. 92; Farley v. Cleveland, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 432, 15 Am. Dec. 387; Peck v. Goff, 18 R. I. 94, 25 Atl. 690; Woodruff v. Scaife, 83 Ala. 152, 3 South. 311; Belknap v. Bender, 7." N. V. 466, 31 Am. Rep. 476; Ackley v. Parmenter, 98 N. Y. 425,.50 Am. Rep. 693; Hughes v. Fisher, 10 Colo. 383, 15 Pac. 702; Fehlinger v. Wood, 134 Pa. 517, 19 Atl. 746; Leake v. Ball, 116 Ind. 214, 17 N. E. 918; Silsby v. Frost. 3 Wash. T. 388, 17 Pac. 887; Ledbetter v. McGhees, 84 Ga. 227, 10 S. E. 727: Mitts v. McMorran, 85 Mich. 94. 48 N. W. 288; Keyes v. Allen, 65 Vt. 667. 27 Atl. 319. But see Gower v. Stuart, 40 Mich. 747; Frame v. August, 88 111. 424. Bee "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 34; Cent. Dig. §54.

(d) A promise to pay another's debt, to come within the statute, must be made to the creditor, and not to the debtor. A promise to the debtor himself to pay his debt for him does not require writing.38 Illustrations of this are where a person buys land or goods, and agrees to pay the purchase money to a creditor of the seller, or, as part of the consideration, assumes a mortgage or other indebtedness of the seller. This is no more than a promise to pay the promisor's own debt in a particular way.39

(e) "If the principal and immediate object of the transaction is to benefit the promisor, not to secure the debt of another person, the promise is considered, not as collateral to the debt of another, but as creating an original debt from the promisor, which is not within the statute, although one effect of its payment may be to discharge the debt of another."40 Under this rule the holder of a note or other security is bound by an oral guaranty of its payment,

37 Wait v. Wait's Ex'r, 28 Vt. 350. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 34; Cent. Dig. § 54.

38 Eastwood v. Kenyon, 11 Adol. & E. 438; Windell v. Hudson, 102 Ind. 521, 2 N. E. 303; Alger v. Scoville, 1 Gray (Mass.) 391, 395; Harwood v. Jones, 10 Gill & J. (Md.) 404, 32 Am. Dec. 180; Mersereau v. Lewis, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 243; Ware v. Allen, 64 Miss. 545, 1 South. 738, 60 Am. Rep. 67; Wood v. Moriarty, 15 R. I. 518, 9 Atl. 427; Clark v. Jones, 85 Ala. 127, 4 South. 771; Meyer v. Hartman, 72 111. 442; Rabbermann v. Wiskamp, 54 111. 179. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 18; Cent. Dig. §§ 27-31.

39 Barker v. Bucklin, 2 Denio (N. Y.) 45, 43 Am. Dec. 726; Wilson v. Bevans, 58 111. 232; Clinton Nat. Bank v. Studemann, 74 Iowa, 104, 37 N. W. 112; Delp v. Brewing Co., 123 Pa. 42, 15 Atl. 871; Bateman v. Butler, 124 Ind. 223, 24 N. E. 989; Hooper v. Hooper, 32 W. Va. 526, 9 S. E. 937; Skinker v. Armstrong, 86 Va. 1011, 11 S. E. 977; Neiswanger v. McClellan, 45 Kan. 599, 26 Pac. 18; Morris v. Gaines, 82 Tex. 255, 17 S. W. 538; Tuttle v. Armstead, 53 Conn. 175, 22 Atl. 677; Mulvany v. Gross, 1 Colo. App. 112, 27 Pac. 878; Lowe v. Hamilton, 132 Ind. 406, 31 N. E. 1117; American Pencil Co. v. Wolfe, 30 Fla. 360, 11 South. 4S8; Scudder v. Carter, 43 111. App. 252; Elkin v. Timlin, 151 Pa. 491, 25 Atl. 139; First Nat. Rank of Sing Sing v. Chalmers, 144 N.' Y. 342, 39 N. E. 331. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 18; Cent. Dig. §§ 27-31.

40 Furbish v. Goodnow, 98 Mass. 296, per Gray, J. And see Prime v. Koeh-ler, 77 N. Y. 91; Howell v. Harvey, 65 W. Va. 310, 64 S. E. 249, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1077; Emerson v. Slater, 22 How. 28, 16 L. Ed. 360; Little v. Edwards, 69 Md. 499, 16 Atl. 134; Davis v. Patrick, 141 U. S. 479, 12 Sup. Ct. 58, 35 L. Ed. 826; Mitchell v. Beck, 88 Mich. 342, 50 N. W. 305; First Nat. Bank of Sing Sing v. Chalmers, 120 N. Y. 658, 24 N. E. 848; Ferst v. Bank of Waycross, 111 Ga. 229, 36 S. E. 773. An oral promise by an attorney to prosecute a suit and pay all the cost, and, if successful, to have half the amount recovered, otherwise nothing, was held not within the statute. Wil-dey v. Crane, 69 Mich. 17, 36 N. W. 734. A contract of reinsurance has been made for the purpose of inducing another to purchase it.41 So the promise by a del credere agent to his principal to guaranty the solvency of the persons to whom he sells goods is not within the statute;42 the agent becomes himself responsible for the payment of the money, and it is only incidental that he expects his obligation to be discharged by the person to whom he sells the goods.43 Again, if a creditor has, or is about to file, a lien on property to secure his claim, and a third person, whose interests are or may be prejudiced thereby, guarantees the debt in consideration of a release of the lien or forbearance to file it, his object is to remove or prevent the lien, and the guaranty is merely incidental, and some courts hold that it need not be in writing,44 though the weight of authority is probably to the contrary where the liability of the debtor continues.45 And it has even been held that where the owner of a building, on which the contractor has abandoned work, promises to pay the contractor's workmen what is due them from held not within the statute. Bartlett v. Insurance Co., 77 Iowa, 155, 41 N. W. G01. But see, contra, Egan v. Insurance Co., 27 La. Ann. 3G8. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § S3; Cent. Dig. §§ 50-53, 56.

41 Brown v. Curtiss, 2 N. Y. 225; Milks v. Rich, SO N. Y. 2G9, 36 Am. Rep. 615; Cardell v. McNiel, 21 N. Y. 338; Darst v. Bates, 95 111. 493, at page 512. And see, in case of assignment and guaranty of judgment, Little v. Edwards, 69 Md. 499, 16 Atl. 134. So, also, where a person having property of his debtor to sell for payment of the debt guaranties the title to induce the promisee to buy it. Farnham v. Chapman, 61 Vt 395, 18 Atl. 152. But see Dows v. Swett, 134 Mass. 142, 45 Am. Rep. 310. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 88; Cent. Dig. §§ 50-53, 56.

42 Couturier v. Hastie, 8 Exch. 40, 5 H. L. Cas. 673; Sherwood v. Stone, 14 N. Y. 267; Wolff v. Koppel, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 458; Id., 2 Denio, 368, 43 Am. Dec. 751; Swan v. Nesmith, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 220, 19 Am. Dec. 282. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 33; Cent. Dig. §§ 50-58, 56.

43Wolff v. Koppel, supra. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § S3; Cent. Dig. §§ 50-53, 56.

44 Fitzgerald v. Dressier, 7 C. B. (N. S.) 374; Smith v. Exchange Bank, 110 Pa. 508, 1 Atl. 760; Wills v. Brown, 118 Mass. 138; Prime v. Koehler, 77 N. Y. 91; Dunlap v. Thorme, 1 Rich. (S. C.) 213; Shook v. Vanmater, 22 Wis. 532; Crawford v. King, 54 Ind. 6; Helt v. Smith, 74 Iowa, 667, 39 N. W. 81; Rogers v. Hardware Co., 24 Neb. 653, 39 N. W. 844; Scott v. White, 71 111. 287; Borchsenius v. Canutson, 100 111. 82; Power v. Rankin, 114 111. 52, 29 N. E. 185; Wooten v. Wilcox, 87 Ga. 474, 13 S. E. 595; Flagler v. Lipman, 1 Misc. Rep. 204, 20 N. Y. Supp. 873. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § S3; Cent. Dig. §§ 50-53, 56.

45 Nelson v. Boynton, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 396, 37 Am. Dec. 148; Curtis v. Brown, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 488; Mallory v. Gillett, 21 N. Y. 412; Bunneman v. Wagner, 16 Or. 433, 18 Pac. 841, 8 Am. St. Rep. 306; Clark v. Jones, 85 Ala. 127, 4 South. 771; Stewart v. Jerome, 71 Mich. 201, 38 N. W. 895, 15 Am. St Rep. 252; Warner v. Willoughby, GO Conn. 468, 22 Atl. 1014, 25 Am. St. Rep. 343; Simpson v. Harris, 21 Nev. 353, 31 Pac. 1009. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § S3; Cent. Dig. §§ 50-53, 56.

the contractor if they will go on with the work, the undertaking is original;46 but this decision is a very doubtful one. The contrary has repeatedly been held.47

But the mere receipt by the promisor of some consideration or benefit for his promise is not sufficient to take it out of the statute, if the principal object of the contract is to pay the debt of another.48