
    JOHNSON against ANDERSON.
    OR CERTIORARI.
    No action lies on a promise to pay damages caused by defendant’s not paying a debt when due.
    The action below was founded on the following state of demand, in substance. That the defendants below, John and Andrew Johnson, were indebted to the plaintiff below, Anderson, in the sum of $500; that Anderson was indebted to two other persons in $100 each, and the money would become due on the 1st day of May, 1810; and that in consequence of his being in danger of being prosecuted for this sum, the defendants promised that they would pay the debt due from them to the plaintiff, to enable him to discharge by the said first day of May the said debts he owed — and that in case they should fail to pay by the time, and the plaintiff should be sued for the same, and put to costs, that they would pay the costs and expenses which he should be so put to; that the defendants failed to pay the money at the time, whereupon [*] the plaintiff was sued in two actions, and put to $80 costs, and demands the said $80 costs, which he had been so put to, of the defendants.
    There was a trial, verdict and judgment, for the plaintiff below, for $65.13.
    
      I. H. Williamson, for the plaintiff in error,
    contended, that there was no legal consideration set out in the state of demand, on which to ground the alleged promise; that the state of demand did not contain a legal cause of action.
   By the Court.

There is no legal consideration on which the promise can attach. If this was law, usury and oppression would take a wide range. The creditor, in most cases, suffers an inconvenience in case of the [717] want of punctuality in his debtor; he cannot, however, recover more than the debt, interest and costs; nor will a promise to pay more, help his case.

Judgment reversed.  