
    Hillsborough,
    June 2, 1914.
    Hugh D. O’Dowd v. Harriet B. Elliott & a.
    
    A creditor’s release of a debtor upon the request of a third party is sufficient consideration for the latter’s promise to pay the debt; and the promisor’s liability is not affected by the subsequent failure of the debtor to keep an agreement which was an inducement of the release.
    Assumpsit, to recover on the defendants’ promise to pay the plaintiff a sum of money owed to him by the Olsens. Trial by the court and verdict for the plaintiff. Transferred from the May term, 1913, of the superior court by Peaslee, J., on the defendants’ exception to the verdict.
    The Olsens admitted the defendants as partners in business, in consideration of their agreement to pay the plaintiff what the Olsens owed him. The Olsens agreed to continue in the business and manage the same, but subsequently withdrew. The plaintiff assented to the arrangement for the payment of his debt and discharged the Olsens from liability, but would not have done so but for their promise to continue as managers of the business.
    
      David W. Perkins, for the plaintiff.
    
      James A. Broderick, for the defendants.
   Young, J.

The fact that the plaintiff would not have released the Olsens from liability but for their promise to continue as managers of the business is immaterial in so far as the defendants.’ liability is concerned. The plaintiff released the Olsens from liability at the defendants’ request, and that is a sufficient consideration for their promise to pay the plaintiff what the Olsens owed him. Cutting v. Whittemore, 72 N. H. 107, 108; Head v. Richardson, 16 N. H. 454, 456.

Exception overruled.

Peaslee, J., did not sit: the others concurred.  