
    *Jacob Hoover v. B. W. Morris.
    Written memorandum that the plaintiff will allow the defendant credit for a certain debt due defendant from a third person, is not within the statute of frauds. It is not a promise to pay, but an acknowledgment of preexisting liability.
    This cause was reserved for decision here, in Tuscarawas county. Ifc was a motion on the part of the plaintiff for a new trial, upon the following case:
    At the trial the defendant offered, as a set-off, a writing in the following words: “I agree that Dr. Morris’ account against Samuel Miller, amounting to about twenty-six dollars, shall be offset, and applied on my claims against Dr. Morris now in suit, and that I will pay the same. Jacob Hoover.” Upon this paper the defendant claimed the offset of twenty-six dollars. The plaintiff’s counsel objected to the admission of the paper in evidence. But the court overruled the objection, and the jury allowed the credit to the defendant. The plaintiff moved for a new trial, on the ground that “it was a promise to pay the debt of a third person, and that, therefore, the consideration ought to be in writing, as well as the promise.”
    No argument was presented for the plaintiff.
    Goodenow argued for the defendant.
   By the Court :

The written memorandum which was admitted in evidence, and :the admission of which the plaintiff complains of as error, stipulates that a certain sum of money, due from Miller to Morris, ■should be charged to the defendant and credited to Morris, in a particular transaction. The memorandum is silent as to the consideration upon which the agreement is founded. Nor is it neces■sary to the validity of the agreement that the consideration should ibe specified. It is nothing more than an admission, that a stipulated sum of money is due from the plaintiff to the defendant, for which the latter shall have credit. It is not an undertaking to .pay the debt of Miller, but an acknowledgment of a pre-existing ¡liability to pay it. Prima facie it was obligatory upon the pi aintiff, .and was, therefore, competent evidence. In this view of the case, which we deem the correct one, it is not touched by the statute of ■frauds. Motion for new trial overruled.  