It is essential that a primary obligation of some kind shall be incurred in order to bring the case within the statute. Therefore a promise to be answerable for the debt or default of one who is not responsible, either because he never has entered into to the contrary in Buckmyr v. Darnall (s. c. Birkmyr v. Darnell), 2 Ld. Ray. 1085, s. c. 3 Balk. 15, 8 Mod. 248, Holt, 606, must be regarded as in-accurate.

21 Redhead v. Cator, 1 Stark. 14.

22Clay v. Walton, 9 Cal. 328 (a promise to become responsible for all brick furnished "and whatever contract or agreement" should be made); Enisely v. Brown, 95 111. App. 516

(promise to furnish $460 worth of livery stable service due from another).

23Stratton v. Hill, 134 Mass. 27; In re Towsr, 46 Mich. 299, 9 N. W. 424.

24 This was held to be the case and the promise not within the statute in Schell v. Stephens, 50 Mo. 375; Farn-ham v. Chapman, 61 Vt. 395, 13 Atl. 152.

25 Kirkham v. Marter, 2 B. ft Ald. 613.