
    Heaton vs. Angier.
    H sold A a waggon. Afterwards A sold the waggon to C, who agreed to pay H the price which A had agreed to pay H for the waggon; and H agreed to take C as his debtor for that price, it was held, that the debt due to H from A was extinguished,
    This was assumpsit for a waggon sold and delivered. The cause was tried upon the general issue, at October term, 1834, and a verdict taken for the plaintiff, subject to the opinion of the court upon the following case.
    The plaintiff, on the 29th March, 1832, sold the waggon to the defendant at auction for $30,25. Immediately after-wards, on the same day, one John Chase bought the waggon of the defendant for $31,25. Chase and the defendant then went to the plaintiff, and Chase agreed to pay the $30,25 to the plaintiff for the defendant, and the plaintiff agreed to take Chase as paymaster for that sum ; and thereupon Chase took the waggon and went away.
    
      Wilson, for the plaintiff.
    Fose, for the defendant.
   Gkeen, J,,

delivered the opinion of the court.

In Tatlock vs. Harris, 3 D. & E. 180, Duller, J., said: “ Suppose A owes B £100, and B owes C £100, and the three meet and it is agreed between them that A shall pay C the £100 : B’s debt is extinguished, and C may recover that sum against A.”

The case thus put by Buller is the very case now before us. Heaton, Angler and Chase being together, it was agreed between them that the plaintiff should take Chase as his debtor for the sum due from the defendant. The debt due to the plaintiff from the defendant was thus extinguished, It was an accord executed. And Chase, by assuming the debt due to the plaintiff,, must be considered, as having paid that amount to the defendant, as part of the price he was to pay the defendant for the waggon.

The agreement of the plaintiff to take Chase as his debtor was clearly a discharge of the defendant. 5 B. & A. 228, Wilson vs. Coupland; 4 B. & C. 163, Wharton vs. Walker; 3 B. & C. 591, Cuxton vs. Chadley.

A new trial granted.  