
    [No. 5189.]
    CHANEY LUCE v. F. ZEILE.
    Statute op Ebauds.—A parol contract to answer for the debt of another is void.
    Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, County of Sacramento.
    The action was brought to recover nine hundred and sixty-six dollars for work performed. At the trial it appeared that the plaintiff had contracted with one McCormick to thresh wheat on the ranch of the defendant, near Bio Yista, at forty dollars per day. After he had worked several days, he went to San Francisco to see about his pay, and when he called upon the defendant was referred by him to his brother, John Zeile, who acted as agent for the defendant. The plaintiff informed John Zeile that he had not been paid by McCormick, and he would not do any more work unless he knew when he was going to be paid for it. John Zeile told him to go on with the work, get an order from McCormick for the amount due, and he (John Zeile) would pay him. The plaintiff thereupon returned and finished the work. He obtained an order from McCormick for the whole amount of his bill, and, McCormick having failed, demanded payment, upon refusal of which he brought this suit.
    Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, a new trial was denied, and the defendant appealed.
    
      
      J. M. Carter and W. M. Stuart, for Appellant.
    The contract relied upon was a parol contract, and to answer in part at least for the debt of another. Such contracts are void under the Statute of Frauds. (Civil Code.)
    
      L. S. Taylor, for Respondent.
   By the Court :

It does not appear how much of the claim recovered accrued before or how much accrued after the failure of McCormick and the alleged conversation had by the' plaintiff with the defendant and John Zeile.

Judgment and order denying a new trial reversed, and cause remanded for a new trial.  