
    Pease against Alexander.
    NEW-YORK,
    Nov. 1810.
    an action be-a°promheofthe ^™ngot' t“0"^ plaintiff by the son of the defondant, the on-that'the Cdefenhe^woum pay mone^hif soa owed the plaintiff ; and no ohjection being made, the cause went to the juverdict” for "he Sféuíf'tLt^ the y™<Tfbr want of a consideration, and for not be-mg in writing; fendant had not to theVenVfit of the statute of frauds.
    IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court.
    
      Alexander declared against Pease, before the justice, upon a promise to pay four dollars for his son Thaddeus. Upon the trial, by a jury, the plaintiff proved that the defendant had said several times, that he would pay the , . , r ; plamtiff the sum that his son owed to the plaintiff, This was all the proof; and no objection being made by either party why the cause should not go to the jury, they found a verdict for the plaintiff. •
   Per Curiam.

Here was no valid contract proved, . . The defendant waived no right. The promise to pay the debt of another, was without any consideration averred or shown, and therefore void. It was also void for want of being in writing; and the defendant may, for aught that appears, have insisted upon the statute before ° l r ’ r the jury. The return only says, “ that no further wit.ness was produced by the parties.” The case affords no ground for any inference by which we can support the .legality of the demand.

Judgment reversed.  