
    CONSTITUTIONAL COURT,
    CHARLESTON,
    JAN. 1804.
    Courtois v. Perquier.
    If the heir of an intestate promises the administrator of the intestate that if he will deliver up to him the assets in his hands, he will satisfy the claim of a certain creditor; and-, at the same time, promises the creditor that he will satisfy his claim, upon his assenting to the administrator’s delivering or surrendering up the assets to him the said heir; and if thereupon, the creditor does assent, and the assets are accordingly delivered to the heir, he shall be bound to satisfy the creditor’s demand: and his promise, under such circumstances, shall be deemed well founded.
    Motion for a new trial. Plaintiff brought assumpsit for money-had, &c. which was tried in Charleston district, before Bay, J. The evidence given in maintenance of the action was, that a Mr. Mainvielle, deceased, in his lifetime, occasionally lodged at the house of the plaintiff, Madame Curtois ; but often furnished her with firewood, and used to go to market himself, and purcbars; meat, &c., and did not charge for the same. But, it appeared that the defendant, who married Mainvieile’s daughter, and only child, before he received from the administrator of M.dnvii-lle the assets of the estate, promised to pay the plaintifl’s demand ; and, the plaintiff thereupon, consented that the administrator should deliver to defendant the assets. The ground of action was, the acknowledgment of the defendant, that so much was due, and his promise to pay, in consideration of assets in his hands, delivered up to him by the administrator of Mainvielle for this purpose. The judge who presided at the trial, expressed doubts if any thing was due, but left it to the jury; who found for the plaintiff. Several objec. tions were taken to the verdict, and the plaintiff’s right to recover. 1. That no account was produced, to shew the nature and particulars of the debt. 2. The presumption, arising from the evidence, that nothing was really due. 3. That the defendant’s promise was not binding by the statute oí frauds. 4. The want of consideration. 5. That the remedy, if any, was against the admi. nistrator.
   The court, after hearing argument by Gaillard, for the motion, and Bailey, contra, were of opinion, that the undertaking of defendant was direct, and not collateral, and made upon sufficient consideration ; and, being for a sum certain, was good and effectual to bind him to a peiformance; and, therefore, refused a new trial. See 9 Co. 93, Bane’s case.

Present, Johnson, Trezevant, and Brevard, Justices,  