The theories actually established by the adjudicated cases may be grouped under four heads. (1) Some courts hold that the test of the applicability of the statute is the continued existence of the old debt. If A's promise to B discharges C's debt, A's promise is not within the statute; but if C remains liable, A's promise is within the statute.1 This rule is undoubtedly true where A's promise is sought to be upheld as a novation.2 By the great weight of authority it has no application where A's promise is to assume C's debt to B for a valuable consideration.3 It cannot be regarded therefore as a rule sustained by the weight of authority.

3 See, as using, "original" or "collateral" as a test, Underhill v. Gibson, 2 N. H. 352; 9 Am. Dec. 82; Meriden Britannia Co. v. Zingsen, 48 N. Y. 247; 8 Am. Rep. 549; Warren v. Smith, 24 Tex. 484; 76 Am. Dec. 115. "An agreement, if it be not collateral, but in the nature of an original agreement to pay the debt of another, founded on a sufficient consideration, received by the promisor himself, is not within the provisions of the statute." Thatcher v. Rockwell, 4 Colo. 375, 409; quoted in Fisk v. Reser, 19 Colo. 88; 34 Pac. 572. For a criticism of the use of the terms "original" and "collateral" as a test, see Dil-laby v. Wilcox, 60 Conn. 71; 25 Am. St. Rep. 299; 13 L. R. A. 643; 22 Atl. 491.

1 Mallet v. Bateman, L. R. 1 C. P. 163; Packer v. Benton, 35 Conn. 343; 95 Am. Dec. 246; Mitchell v. Griffin, 58 Ind. 559; Span v. Baltz-ell, 1 Fla. 301; 46 Am. Dec. 346;

Andre v. Bodman. 13 Md. 241; 71 Am. Dec. 628; Dow v. Swett. 134 Mass. 140; 45 Am. Rep. 310; Perkins v. Hershey, 77 Mich. 504; 43 N. W. 1021; Ackley v. Parmenter, 98 N. Y. 425; 50 Am. Rep. 693; Dougherty v. Bash. 167 Pa. St. 429; 31 Atl. 729; Corbett v. Cochran, 3 Hill. L. (S. C.) 41; 30 Am. Dec. 348; Warren v. Smith. 24 Tex. 484; 76 Am. Dec. 115; Anderson v. Davis, 9 Vt. 136; 31 Am. Dec. 612; Hooker v. Russell. 67 Wis. 257; 30 N. W. 358. This clause of the statute applies only to " an undertaking by a person not before liable, for the purpose of securing or performing the same duty for which the party for whom the undertaking was made continues liable." Packer v. Benton, 35 Conn. 343, 350; 95 Am. Dec. 246, 249; quoted in Dil-laby v. Wilcox. 60 Conn. 71, 77; 25 Am. St. Rep. 299; 13 L. R. A. 643; 22 Atl. 491. 2See Sec. 629.