
    Francis L. Siau ads. Joseph Pigott.
    A promise to satisfy a lien upon a vessel, belonging to a tliird person, which was ready for sea, in consideration that plaintiff would suffer lrer to proceed to sea, is not within the statute of frauds.
    This case was tried before Mr. Justice Oheves, at Georgetown, Spring Term, 1817.
    It was admitted, that the plaintiff had a demand against the schooner General Hampton, a vessel owned by the defendant’s father, but in the possession and charge of the defendant. That the owner of the vessel was absent, and that the vessel was specifically liable in the Admiralty for the demand. That the plaintiff was about to libel her. That she was ready for sea and bound on a voyage. That the defendant, in consideration that the plaintiff would forbear to libel the vessel, and suffer her to proceed to sea, promised he would pay him the amount of his demand. That the plaintiff did forbear to libel the vessel, and suffered her to depart.
    It was contended by the counsel for the defendant, that the case was within the statute of frauds, and that the defendant was not liable, not having bound himself by a note in writing.
    *The presiding Judge did not think the case within the statute, and (the case being within the process jurisdiction) gave a decree for the plaintiff. This was a motion for a new trial, on the ground taken in the District Court.
   The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Oheves, J.

This case is not distinguishable from the cases of William v. Leper, (3 Burrows, 1886,) and Houlditch v. Milne, (3 Esp. cases, 86.) The plaintiff had a lien on the vessel, which he could have immediately enforced by the process of the Admiralty, and which he parted with on the defendant’s promise to pay.

Dunlcin, for the motion.

The decree must be affirmed.

Colcock, Gantt and Johnson, JJ., concurred.

See 3 Strob. 177, 209; 1 Strob. 5; 4 Strob. 455; 1 Sp. 7; 3 Hill, 41; 2 McM. 61; 1 Bail. 14; 1 McC. 486, 575.  