This clause has been construed as if the words " for the debt or default of another " were to be understood at the end of the clause, which is thus in effect equivalent to the next clause in the statute, so far as concerns executors and administrators. Accordingly an executor or administrator who for a consideration moving to himself undertakes as an original obligor to assume and discharge a debt of the testator, is bound without writing.13 The statute also is construed as inapplicable to contracts made by an executor or administrator on behalf of the estate,14 though such contracts, as has been seen,15 impose most clauses of Statutes of Frauds is indicated in the following extract from the opinion of the court in Paul v. Graham, 193 Mich. 447,160 N. W. 616, 617: "It has been the rule of this court to permit recoveries for services actually performed under contracts void under the statute of frauds, either at the contract price or under a quantum meruit. Fuller v. Rice, 52 Mich. 435, 18 N. W. 204; Moore v. Nason, 48 Mich. 300, 12 N. W, 162; Smith v. Manufacturing Co., 175 Mich. 371, 141 N. W. 563; Smith v. Piano Co., 185 Mich. 313, 151 N. W. 1025. If this rule is to be made applicable to this section of the Statute of Frauds, it would practically nullify the effect of the statute. Demands for commissions by real estate brokers are not usually made or pressed until the contract is performed. This being so, a recovery could be had, in nearly every instance, either at the contract price or under the quantum meruit. In order to give the act the effect which the Legislature evidently intended it should have, we have decided to hold that no recovery can be had under this section unless the agreement therefor is in writing. This is in accord with the holding of other courts which have construed similar statutes. Leimbach v. Regner, 70 N. J. L. 608, 57 Atl. 138; Blair v. Austin, 71 Neb. 401, 98 N. W. 1040; McCarthy v. Loupe, 62 Cal. 299."
12See infra, Sec. 1195.
13 Bott v. Barr, 95 Ind. 243; Blake v. Robinson, 129 Ia. 196, 105 N. W. 401; Gabbert v. Evans, 184 Mo. App. 283, 2166 S. W. 635; Hall v. Richardson, 2 Hun, 444, aff'd without opinion in 89 N. Y. 636; Bellows v. Sowles, 57 Vt. 164, 52 Am. Rep. 118.
14 Pratt v. Humphrey, 22 Conn. 317; Brown c. Quintan, 86 Kan. 658, 122 Pac. 116; Stebbins v. Smith, 4 Pick. 97; Meade v. Bowles, 123 Mich. 696, 82 N. W. 658; Hall v, Richardson, 22 Hun, 444, aff'd without opinion in 89 N. Y. 636; Feblinger v. Wood, 134 Pa. 517, 19 Atl. 746.
15 See supra, Sec. 310.