This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
A contract whereby A agrees to pay B for property, services, and the like to be delivered to C by B, or performed for him, is valid, as the detriment to B is a consideration for C's promise.1 The liability on these facts rests upon A alone. Accordingly such a promise is not included in this clause of the statute, even though C receives the benefit of the promise as the debt is not C's and never was.2 This is, therefore, an illustration of the principle discussed in the preceding section.3 Thus if B delivers goods to C,4 or furnishes C with board,5 or care,6 or a house,7 or if B furnishes a coffin for C,8 or if B performs services for C,9 such as services of an attorney,10 or a physician,11 or services in transporting property,12 in reliance on A's promise to pay, A's contract is not within this clause of the statute of frauds as long as no liability exists against C. Still less is A's promise within the statute if A has some interest in C's property on which B does work relying on A's promise to pay him,13 as where A is a mortgagee of the property.14 So if A is the president of a corporation, C, and to induce B to give an option to C A agrees personally to pay C's expenses and attorney fees arising out of such transaction if the corporation does not accept such option is not within the statute.15
10 Champlain Construction Co. v. O'Brien, 117 Fed. 271, 788.
11 Miller v. Long, 45 Pa. St. 350. Of course, this rule does not apply "where the married woman is liable personally by statute, or her estate is charged with her debts. Con-nerat v. Goldsmith, 6 Ga. 14.
12 Dexter v. Blanchard, 11 All. (Mass.) 365; Brown v. Bank, 88 Tex. 265; 33 L. R. A. 359; 31 S. W. 285; reversing on this point, 31 S. W. 216. Contra, but obiter, King v. Summitt, 73 Ind. 312; 38 Am. Rep. 145.
1 See Sec. 276.
2 Jenkins, etc., Co. v. Landgren, 85 111. App. 494; Cox v. Peltier, 159 Ind. 355; 65 X. E. 6; Collins v. Stanfield. 139 Ind. 184; 38 N. E. 1091; Marr v. Ry.. 121 la. 117; 96 X. W. 716; Biglane v. Hicks, -Miss. -; 33 So. 413; Williams v.
Auten. 62 Neb. 832; 87 X. W. 1061; Peyson v. Conniff, 32 Neb. 269; 49 X. W. 340; Kesler v. Cheadle, 12 Okla. 489; 72 Pac. 367; Nixon v. Jacobs, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 97; 53 S. W. 595.
3 See Sec. 617.
4 Clark v. Jones, 87 Ala. 474; 6 So. 362; Sears v. Flodstrom, 5 Ida. 314; 49 Pac. 11; Lusk v. Throop, 189 111. 127; 59 X. E. 529; affirming, 89 111. App. 509; Clark v. Smith, 87 111. App. 409; Foster, etc., Co. v. Felcher, 119 Mich. 353; 78 X. W. 120; Maurin v. Fogelberg, 37 Minn. 23; 5 Am. St. Rep. 814; 32 X. W. 858; Chick v. Coal Co., 78 Mo. App. 234: Gill v. Reed, 55 Mo. App. 246; Lindsey v. Heaton. 27 Neb. 662; 43 X. W. 420; Nesbitt v. Reduction Co., 22 Nev. 260; 38 Pac. 670; Gallagher v. McBride, 66 X. J. L. 360; 49 Atl. 582; White v. Tripp, 125 N.