In early times debt would not lie unless the goods, services, or money which formed the basis of the action had been received by the defendant; but subsequently "it became a settled rule that whatever would constitute a quid pro quo, if rendered to the defendant himself, would be none the less a quid pro quo, though furnished to a third person, provided that it was furnished at the defendant's request, and that the third person incurred no liability therefor to the plaintiff."84 It followed from this, and is still true, that a contract is not brought within to be answered.' Rolle had argued that 'there was a difference where one is retained generally for another with such a promise to pay his fees and as much as he should expend in the suit, there debt lies: but if I retain one to be attorney for another and promise if the other doth not pay, that I will pay, there if the party for whom the retainer is doth not pay, an action of the case lies against me upon my promise, and not an action of debt.' In confirmation of this sound distinction see Woodhouse v. Bradford, 2 Roll. R. 76, Cro. Jac. 620; Sanborn v. Merrill, 41 Me. 467; Hodges p. Hall, 29 Vt. 209; Murpbey v. Gates, 81 Wis. 370, 61 N. W. 573."

83 See, e. g., Richardson Press v. Albright, 224 N. Y. 497, 121 N. E. 363.

84Ames, Lectures Legal History, 93.

85 Jones v. Cooper, Cowp. 227; Croft v. Smallwood, 1 Esp. 121; Faires v. Lodanc, 10 Ala. 60; Clark v. Jones, 87 Ala. 474, 6 So. 362; Cameron v. Haas Bros. Packing Co., 3 Ala. App. 20; Day v. Adeock (Ala. App.), 66 So. 911; Millsaps v. Nixon, 102 Ark. 435, 144 S. W. 915; Loomis v. Smith, 17 Conn. 115; S. J. Cordner Co. v. Manevets (Conn.), 103 Atl. 842; Baldwin v. Hiera, 73 Ga. 730; Crowder v. Keys, 91 Ga. 180, 16 S. E. 986; Cordray v. James, 19 Ga. App. 156, 91 S. E. 239; Williams v. Corbet, 28 111. 262; Owen v. Stevens, 78 111. 462; Hartley v. Varaer, 88 111. 561; Granite City, etc., Co. v. Board of Education, 203 111. App. 134; Board of Commis-aionerB v. Cincinnati, etc., Co., 128 Ind. 240, 27 N. E. 612, 12 L. R. A. 602; Coffins v. Stanfield, 139 Ind. 184, 38 N. E. 1091; Benbow v. Soothemith, 76 Ia, 151, 40 N. W. 693; Calahan v. Ward, 45 Kane. 546, 26 Pac. 53; Elder v. Warfield, 7 Har. & J. 391; Walker v. Hill, 119 Man. 249; Larson v. Jensen, 63 Mich. 427, 19 N. W. 130; Hake v. Solomon, 62 Mich. 377, 28 N. W. 908; Amort v. Chriatofferson, 57 Minn. 234, 59 N. W. 304; Wallace p. Wortham, 25 Miss. 119, 57 Am. Dee. 197; Stokes v. Mills, 171 Mo. App. 638, 154 S. W. 455; Barras v. Pomeroy Co., 38 Neb. 311, 56 N. W. 890; Nesbit v. Pioche, etc., Co., 22 Nev. 260, 38 Pac. 670; Walker v. Richards, 41 N. H. 388; Haaeltine v. Wilson, 56 N. J. L. 260, 28 Atl. 79; Herendeen Mfg. Co. v. Moore, 66 N. J. L. 74, 48 Atl. 525; Gallagher v. McBride, 66 N. J. L. 360, 49 Atl. 682; Fitigerald v. Kelly, S3 N. J. L. 626, 85 Atl. 1134; Chase v. Day, 17 Johns. 114; Maddock v. Root,

72 Hun, 98, 25 N. Y. S. 396; Fitigerald v. Tiffany, 9 N. Y. Misc. 408, 30 N. Y. S. 195; Mackey v. Smith, 21 Oreg. 698, 28 Pac. 974; Jefferson Co. v. Slagle, 66 Pa. 202; Merriman v. Mc-Manua, 102 Pa. 102; Mease v. Wagner, 1 McC. 395; Fox v. Laney, 107 S. Car. 318, 92 S. E. 1044; Hazen v. Bearden, 4 Sneed, 48; Carlisle v. Frost Llewellyn Lumber Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 196 S. W. 733; Whitman v. Bryant, 49 Vt. 512; Davies v. Carey, 72 Wash. 537, 130 Pac. 1137; Security Bank Note Co. v. Shrader, 70 W. Va. 475, 74 S. E. 416, Ann. Cas. 1914 A. 488; Champion v. Doty, 31 Wis. 190; Treat Lumber Co. v. Warner, 60 Wis. 183, 18 N. W. 747. It is immaterial that the seller agreed with the promisor to conceal from the person to whom the goods were furnished that they were not furnished on his credit and to get payment from him if possible. Spriek Bros. Ins. Co. v. Whipple, 33 Dak. 287, 145 N. W. 559. 86Brown v. Harrell, 40 Ark. 429; McTighe v. Herman, 42 Ark. 285; Chicago, etc., Coal Co. v. Liddell, 69 HI. 639; Geelan v. Reid, 22 111. App. 165; Kernodle v. Caldwell, 46 Ind. 153; Leasenich v. Pettit, 91 Iowa, 609, 60 N. W. 192; Marr v. Burlington, etc., R, Co., 121 Ia. 117, 96 N. W. 716; Downs v. Perkins, 207 Mass. 409, 93 N. E. 645; Grant v. Wolf, 34 Minn. 32, 24 N. W. 289; Sinclair v. Bradley, 52 Mo. 180; Bushee v. Allen, 31 Vt. 631. See also Fairbanks v. Barker, 116 Me. 11, 97 Atl. 3.

87Darnell v. Tratt, 2 C. & P. 82; Gleaaon v. Thaw, 206 Fed. 505, 123 C. C. A. 573; Zimmerman v. Holt, 102 Ark. 407, 144 S. W. 222; Milliken v.