57 Espalla v. Wilson, 86 Ala. 487, 5 So. 867; Spurgeon v. Swain, 13 Ind. App. 188, 41 N. E. 397; Lavell v. Frost, 16 Mont. 93, 40 Pac. 146; Dull v. Bricker, 76 Pa. 255.
58 "If the written request of Frink be regarded as a bill of exchange the result would not be different, as the verbal acceptance by the drawee of a bill of exchange, who holds no funds of the drawer, is no more than a parol promise to answer for the debt of another." The Chicago Lumber Co. v.
Accordingly unless the debt is the acceptor's own and the drawer has signed for accommodation, it may be said that the acceptance is a promise to answer for the debt of another. But by his acceptance the acceptor acquires the right to charge the drawer with the amount of the bill; and is therefore, cancelling one debt by the creation of another - an arrangement which is not within the statute.61 Though obligations on negotiable instruments are not within the statute, promises to enter into such obligations may be within its scope.62 It should be noticed too that the exception protecting negotiable instruments is confined to the negotiable obligations permitted by mercantile custom. A special contract like a guaranty is not withdrawn from the operation of the statute, merely because it is written on the back of a negotiable bill or note.63 But a new promise by an indorser who has been discharged by the holder's lack of diligence is excluded from the operation of the statute, the promissory character of the undertaking being concealed by applying to it the name of waiver.64
Miller, 219 111. 79, 82, 76 N. E. 52, citing: Browne on Frauds, 174, 2 Rob. Pr. 152; Quin v. Handford, 1 Hill, 82; Pike v. Irwin, 1 Sandf. 14; Manly v. Orogan, 105 Mass. 445; Plummer v. Lyman, 49 Me. 229; Wakefield v. Greenhood, 29 Cal. 597, 600; Walton v. Mandeviile, 56 Iowa, 597, 41 Am. Rep. 123. See also Hill v. Wright, 144 Ky. 806, 139 8. W. 946. See also Ames' Cas. Suretyship, 106, I07n.
59Jarvis v. Wilson, 46 Conn. 90, 33 Am. Rep. 18; Laflin Co. v. Sinsheimer, 48 Md. 411, 30 Am. Rep. 472; but see cases cited in the preceding note.
60Neg. Inst. Law, Sec. 142. See infra, Sec. 1196. See also cases holding that a promise by the assignee of property to pay a debt absolutely, taking the risk of sufficiency of funds transferred is within the statute. Infra, S459.
61 See infra, Sec.Sec. 477-479.
62 See supra, Sec. 455.
63Seetufra, Sec. 573.
64 Uhler v. Farmers' Bank, 64 Pa. 406, and see eases cited supra, Sec. 157. But see Peabody v. Harvey, 4 Conn. 119.