Nor is the principle different where a promisor previously indebted undertakes for sufficient consideration to pay the debt, or part of it, to a creditor of his own creditor. Here, too, the promisor is undertaking merely to pay his own debt, he is not making himself surety for the debt of another, and it is immaterial that there is no novation.50 So far as the new promisor's obligation to his promisee is concerned the situation is the same as if there were a complete novation.

180, 14 N. W. 223; Pratt v. Fishwild, 121 Ia. 642, 96 N. W. 1089; Bartlett v. Smith, 6 Neb. Unoff. 337, 98 N. W. 687; Smart v. Smart, 97 N. Y. 559; Lyon v. Clochessy, 43 N. Y. Misc. 67, 86 N. Y. S. 245; Townsend v. Long, 77 Pa. St. 143, 18 Am. Rep. 438; Brasee v. Woods, 35 Tex. 302; Brown p. Brown (Tex. Civ. App.), 155 S. W. 551; Gay v. Pemberton (Tex. Civ. App.), 44 S. W. 400. See also Stover v. Stevens, 21 Cal. App. 261, 131 Pac. 332; Bracken v. Dillon, 64 Gs. 243.

47Weinhard v. R. R. Thompson Eat, 242 Fed. 315, affd. tub nam. R. R. Thompson Est. v. Weinhard, 247 Fed. 951, 160 C. C. A. 376; La Duke v. Barbee, (Ala. 1916), 73 So. 472; Ford v. Finney, 35 Ga. 258; Cowart v. SingLetary, 140 Ga. 435, 79 S. E. 196, 47 L. R. A. (N. S.) 621 Lowe p. Turpie, 147 Ind. 652, 44 N. E. 25 (reported on later appeal in 158 Ind. 47, 62 N. E. 628); 37 L. R. A. 233; Johnson v. Knapp, 36 Ia. 616; Blair Town Lot Co. v. Walker, 39 Ia. 406; Morrison v. Hogue, 49 Iowa, 574; Piano Mfg. Co. v. Burrows, 40 Kane. 361, 19 Pac 809; Mudd v. Carico, 104 Ky. 719, 47 S. W. 1080, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 898; Stariha v. Greenwood, 28 Minn. 521, 11 N. W.

76; Lee v. Newman, 55 Miss. 365; Clopper v. Poland, 12 Neb. 69, 10 N. W. 538; Berry v. Doremus, 30 N. J. L. 309; Satterfield v. Kindley, 144 N. C. 455, 57 S. E. 145; Swihart v. Shaum, 24 Ohio St. 432; Feldman v. McGuire, 34 Oreg. 309, 55 Pac. 872; Miller v. Beck, 72 Oreg. 140, 142 Pac. 603; Taylor v. Preston, 79 Pa. 436; Elkin v. Timlin, 151 Pa. 491, 25 Atl. 139; Morris v. Gaines, 82 Tex. 255, 17 S. W. 538; Tradera' Nat. Bank v. Clare, 76 Tex. 47, 13 S. W. 183; Hoile v. Bailey, 58 Wis. 434, 17 N. W. 322. But see Cox v. Baltimore, etc., It. Co., 180 Ind. 495,103 N. E. 337, 50 L, R. A. (N. S.) 453.

48 Bartlett v. Fireman's Fund Ins, Co., 77 Ia. 155, 41 N. W. 601 (a contract of reinsurance); French v. French, 84 Ia. 655, 51 N. W. 145, 15 L. R. A. 300; Van Cappellan p. Chicago etc. R. Co., 126 Minn. 251, 148 N. W. 104; Moore v. Kirkland, 112 Miss. 55, 72 So. 855; Repair p. Krebs Lumber Co., 73 W. Va. 139, 80 S. E, 140. Egan v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 27 La. Ann. 368, is a solitary decision to the contrary.

49 Manley v. Geagan, 105 Mass. 104. See also Walton v. Maudeville, 56 Ia. 507, 0 N. W. 913, 41 Am. Rep. 123.

Sec. 480. A Promise To Pay For The Purchase Of A Claim Is Not Within the statute

Though a creditor's motive in selling his claim may be substantially the same that he has in endeavoring to get payment of it, the transaction is, nevertheless, an entirely different one. The purchaser does not promise to pay the debt; he promises to pay a price for it; and it is contemplated that the claim shall continue in existence. It is an accident if the amount which the purchaser promises to pay is identical with the amount of the debt. Accordingly a promise to buy a claim is not within the statute.51