
    Simpson against Patten.
    ALBANY,
    August, 1809.
    A promise to pay tlie debt or a third person, though made on a sufficient con¿deration, must be in writing,
    In error on certiorari, from a justice’s court. J
    Patten, the defendant in error, sued Simpson, the plaintiff m error, m the court below, on a promise, that it he, Patten, would forbear to sue one J. S. the present plaintiff in error would pay the defendant in error the amount of the note of J. S. to the defendant in error, which was then due, as soon as he could sell an acre of land, belonging to the said J. S. which he was authorised to sell; and the plaintiff averred that Simpson did sell the acre of land, for the sum of 50 dollars, fkc.
    The defendant in error, offered to prove the promise, as stated ; but the plaintiff in error, insisted that there ought to be some note, or memorandum in writing of the promise, otherwise the plaintiff could not recover j but the justice admitted evidence of the verbal promise, and gave judgment for the plaintiff.
    Shepherd, for the plaintiff in error.
    
      Van Vechten, contra,
    cited Elting v. Vanderlyn, (ante, p. 237.)
   Per Curiam.

A promise to pay the debt of a third person must be in writing, notwithstanding it is made on a sufficient consideration, (2 Str. 873. 2 Term Rep. 80. 2 Wils. 94. 1 Saund. 211. n. 2.) The judgment below must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.  