
    14450.
    COOPER v. COCHRAN COTTON MILLS.
    The oral promise to pay, upon which goods were furnished to anotuer, under the facts of this ease, was one of suretyship and was not binding, under the statute of frauds.
    Decided June 12, 1923.
    Certiorari; from Bleckley superior court — Judge Graham. February 3, 1923.
    
      G. A. Weddington,- for plaintiff. II. McWhorter, for defendant.
   Broyles, C. J.

“ Where a storekeeper lets A have goods, on the verbal promise of B that he will see that the debt is paid, and the storekeeper charges the account to both A and B, and, upon the failure of both to pay the account, files suit against both, the contract, so far as B is concerned, must lie construed as merely one of suretyship and not an original undertaking, and B’s promise to pa3’, not having been made in writing, is void and not binding upon him. Reynolds v. Simpson, 74 Ga. 454; Harris v. Paulk, 10 Ga. App. 334 (73 S. E. 430); Few v. Hilsman, 18 Ga. App. 207 (89 S. E. 207); Cordray v. James, 19 Ga. App. 156 (91 S. E. 239); 20 Cyc. 180, E.” McAfee v. Benson, 21 Ga. App. 309 (1) (94 S. E. 328). Under the above ruling and the facts of the instant case, the judge of the superior court did not err in sustaining the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

Juice and Bloodworih, JJ., concur.  