"Where A promises to pay a pre-existing debt of C's to B in case C does not pay it, and C's liability to B is unaffected, A's promise is within the statute.1 Thus where the administrator of

2 Perkins v. Hershey, 77 Mich. 504; 43 N. W. 1021; Hanson v. Nelson, 82 Minn. 220; 84 N. W. 742; Giles v. Mahoney, 79 Minn. 309; 82 N. W. 583; Nelson v. Larson, 57 Minn. 133; 58 N. W. 687; Cornwell v. Megins, 39 Minn. 407; 40 N. W. 610; Haeberle v. O'Day, 61 Mo. App. 390.

3 Dougherty v. Bash, 167 Pa. St. 429; 31 Atl. 729; citing and following Mallet v. Bateman, L. R. 1 C. P. 163.

4 Haeberle v. O'Day, 61 Mo. App. 390.

5 Hanson v. Nelson, 82 Minn. 220; 84 N. W. 742.

6 Hanson v. Nelson, 82 Minn. 220; 84 N. W. 742.

7 Packer v. Benton, 35 Conn. 343; 95 Am. Dec. 246.

8 Giles v. Mahoney, 79 Minn. 309; 82 N. W. 583.

1 Harris v. Frank, 81 Cal. 280; 22 Pac. 856; Turner v. Hubbell, 2 Day (Conn.) 457; 2 Am. Dec. 115; a mortgagee's estate promises a tax collector to pay a tax levied against mortgagor if he will forbear to levy on the mortgaged property,2 or where the widow of a decedent promises to pay a claim for taxes owing from such decedent and paid by another if such other would refrain from suit to enforce such claim,3 or where a vendor of land covenants that a certain railroad near such land will operate permanently,4 such promise is within the statute. Where B incorporates an item for which C is liable into his account against A, and by A's verbal agreement the entire account becomes an account stated, the statute nevertheless applies to the item for which C was liable.5

Cross v. Kistler, 14 Colo. 571; 23 Pac. 903; Hersey v. Tully, 8 Colo. App. 110; 44 Pac. 854; Bluthenthal v. Moore, 111 Ga. 297; 36 S. E. 689; Flanagan v. Scott, 102 Ga. 399; 31 S. E. 23; Calverly v. Wirth, 59 111. App. 553; Hahn v. Maxwell, 33 111. App. 261; Blumenthal v. Tib-bits, 160 Ind. 70; 66 N. E. 159; Brant v. Johnson, 46 Kan. 389; 26 Pac. 735; Strickland v. Hamlin, 87 Me. 81; 32 Atl. 732; Richardson v. Williams, 49 Me. 558; Stewart v. Campbell, 58 Me. 439; 4 Am. Rep. 296; Doyle v. White, 26 Me. 341; 45 Am. Dec. 110; Slingluff v. Supply Co., 89 Md. 557; 43 Atl. 759; Ames v. Foster, 106 Mass. 400; 8 Am. Rep. 343; Nelson v. Boynton, 3 Met. (Mass.) 396; 37 Am. Dec. 148; Dean v. Ellis, 108 Mich. 240; 65 N. W. 971; Preston v. Zekind, 84 Mich. 641; 48 N. W. 180; Perkins v. Hershey, 77 Mich. 504; 43 N. W. 1021; Stewart v. Jerome, 71 Mich. 201; 15 Am. St. Rep. 252; 38 N. W. 895; Wallace v. Wortham, 25 Miss. 119; 57 Am. Dec. 197; Bissig v. Britton, 59 Mo. 204; 21 Am. Rep. 379; Nunn v. Carroll, 83 Mo. App. 135; Simpson v. Harris, 21 Nev. 353; 31 Pac. 1009; Chesebrough v. Thrill, 61 N. J. L. 628; 41 Atl. 215; Ackley v. Parmenter, 98 N. Y.

425; 50 Am. Rep. 693; Belknap v. Bender, 75 N. Y. 446; 31 Am. Rep. 476; Duffy v. Wunsch, 42 N. Y. 243; 1 Am. Rep. 514; Mallory v. Gillett, 21 N. Y. 412; Carville. v Crane, 5 Hill (N. Y.) 483; 40 Am. Dec. 364; Haun v. Burrell, 119 N. C. 544; 26 S. E. Ill; Pinson v. Prentise, 8 Okla. 143; 56 Pac. 1049; Gump v. Halberstadt, 15 Or. 356; 15 Pac. 467; Branson v. Kitchen-man. 148 Pa. St. 541; 24 Atl. 61; Allshouse v.Ramsey, 6 Whart. (Pa.) 331; 37 Am. Dec. 417; Taylor v. Drake, 4 Strobh. Law. (S. C.) 431; 53 Am. Dec. 680; Durham v. Ar-ledge, 1 Strobh. Law. (S. C.) 5; 47 Am. Dec. 544; Rentfrow v. Lancaster, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 321; 31 S. W. 229; Hughes v. Frum, 41 W. Va. 445; 23 S. E. 604; Gray v. Herman, 75 Wis. 453; 6 L. R. A. 691; 44 N. W. 248; Hooker v. Russell, 67 Wis. 257; 30 N. W. 358.

2Dillaby v. Wilcox, 60 Conn. 71; 25 Am. St. Rep. 299; 13 L. R. A. 643; 22 Atl. 491.

3 Blumenthal v. Tibbits, 160 Ind. 70; 66 N. E. 159.

4Bradfield v. Land Co., 93 Ala. 527; 8 So. 383.

5Martyn v. Arnold, 36 Fla. 446; 18 So. 791.

Since for purposes of doing business a corporation is a legal entity distinct from its officers and stockholders, a promise by an officer,6 stockholder7 or receiver8 of a corporation binding himself personally to pay the debts of the corporation is within the statute. So where a cashier of a bank is not personally liable for loss on a loan made by him, his promise to pay such debt if the debtor does not is within the statute.9 If C claims a commission from A, the former owner of realty, for effecting a sale thereof to B, B's promise to C to pay such commission is within the statute.10