
    Shields v. Middleton.
    A verbal acceptance of an order, drawn at the foot of the account of a third person against the drawer, is not a promise to pay the debt of another within the Statute of Frauds.
    Assumpsit, against the acceptor of Bates1 bill on the defendant, which was in this form: —
    “Washington, December, 1817.
    “Mr. Bates, To James Shields, Dr. To 32 brls. lime, at $3 per brl. $96.00. #
    “ Mr. J. S. Middleton, Sir, Please to pay the above bill and oblige yours, respectfully, Reuben Bates.”
    
      Mr. Caldwell, for the defendant
    objected that this is a promise to pay the debt of another, and that as the promise to pay was not in writing, ft was void by the Statute of Frauds.
   But

the Court

(nem. con.) instructed the jury that this order was a bill of exchange; that the defendant’s promise to pay it was equivalent to an acceptance,;Tand that such an acceptance is not within the statute.  