
    *J. J. Richardson vs. T. C. Richardson.
    The parol undertaking of a third person to pay for articles purchased hy another, is void, by the Statute of Frauds.
    
    Before Earle, J., at Sumter, Spring Term, 1841.
    This was a sum. pro. on a merchant’s account. The goods were charged on the books to one Simmons, who was the overseer of the defendant. It was attempted to make the defendant liable on the evidence of Jones, who was the clerk of the plaintiff, examined by commission, who deposed that he was under a strong impression that the goods were charged to Simmons at the request and direction of the defendant. That Simmons was not held responsible, and in fact had never been called on to pay. That the defendant, when called on, referred witness to Simmons, saying, if it was correct, he defendant, would pay it; and Simmons said it was correct, deducting a single charge of four dollars ; and, in fact the plaintiff always looked to the defendant.
    The question arose on a motion for nonsuit, whether the defendant was liable. I thought the books established a debt against Simmons, and that the credit was originally given to him. The strong impression of the witness was not enough, in my judgment, to obviate the effect of this. The parol undertaking of the defendant, was collateral and void. The nonsuit was ordered.
    The plaintiff moves to set aside the nonsuit.
    1. Because the undertaking on the part of the defendant to be responsible for articles purchased by Simmons, was original in its nature, and not within the statute of frauds.
    2. Because the credit was wholly given to the defendant, the account having been only charged to Simmons, at the special instance and request of the defendant, for his convenience, and credit was expressly refused to Simmons himself.
    
      W. F. Be Saussure, for the motion.
    The question in this case is, to whom was the credit given ? Looking to the testimony, we must conclude that it was given to the defendant. McKenzie vs. Quilter, (4 McC. 409.)
    
      *Moses, contra.
    If a third person is liable, it must he in writing. 1 Saunders, 211, note A. Lelland vs. Crain, (1 McC. 100.)
    
      See 2 McM. 372, and note there. An.
    
   Curia, per

Gantt, J.

This was a summary process on a merchant’s account. On the books it appeared that the goods were charged to one Simmons, the overseer of the defendant. It was attempted to be shown on the trial, that although the goods were charged to Simmons, yet that the defendant, Thomas C. Richardson, was the original contracting party, and, as such, bound in law to pay for them. The evidence offered to show this, was the examination of the clerk of the plaintiff, who deposed that he was under a strong impression that the goods were charged to Simmons at the request and direction of the defendant.

But the process which issued in this case, is conclusive to show that Simmons, and not the defendant, was the original contracting party ; for it alleges that the defendant is indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of twenty-seven dollars and seventy-one cents, which he assumed to pay on an account for that sum, which the plaintiff had against one Thomas Simmons. How, then, can it be maintained, that the undertaking was original on the part of the defendant ? If the defendant ever did promise to pay this account for Simmons, the promise should have been in writing ; otherwise, it cannot be enforced, being void by the statute of frauds.

The motion is refused.

The whole Court concurred.  