A promise to answer for the debt of another is not taken out of the statute by performance by the party to whom the promise is made.1 While some cases are explained on the theory of part performance2 they may as well be explained on the theory that promisor has made the debt his own. Thus, where A desired to get control of a soda-water fountain owned by B and leased to C, to prevent it from being used in competition, and to do this A agreed to pay to B the rent due him on the fountain from C, and B in consideration of A's promise to release C from the lease and from payment of arrears of rent, A's promise was held not within the statute.3