
    Dicey Caston v. Stephen Moss.
    Columbia,
    May, 1828.
    A promise to pay tbe debt of a third person, though made in consideration of forbearance, is not an original, but a collateral undertaking within the statute of frauds, and must be in writing.
    Tried before Mr. Justice James, at Lancaster, Fall Term, 1827.
    This was an appeal from a magistrate. One Hull being indebted to the plaintiff, the defendant promised that if the plaintiff would forbear to sue Hull for a specified time, he would pay the debt. The plaintiff waited accordingly, and the specified time having elapsed, sued the defendant in a magistrate’s court. The magistrate gave judgment for the plaintiff, and on appeal to the Common Pleas, the judgment was affirmed.
    The defendant now moved the Court of Appeals to reverse the judgment as contrary to law.
    Fish v. Hutch inson, 2 Wilson, 94 b.
    King v. Wilson, 2 Str. 873.
    Buckmyr v. Darnall, 2 Ld. Itaym. 1085.
    Howard, for the motion.
    Williams, contra.
    
   Johnson, J.

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was clearly a promise to pay the debt of another. There was no such consideration passing from the plaintiff to the defendant, as to constitute it an original undertaking. The promise not being in writing, was void under the statute of frauds, and the judgment must, therefore, be reversed.

Judgment reversed.  