
    FINKELSTEIN v. KESSLER.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    June 22, 1903.)
    1. Guaranty—Requisites—Expressing Consideration—Necessity.
    Under Laws 1863, p. 802, c. 464, omitting in the re-enactment of the statute of frauds the provision requiring the consideration of a promise to answer for the debt of another to be expressed in the writing containing the promise, the written guaranty to be responsible for goods thereafter sold by plaintiff to a third person need not express the consideration.
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Eigh'th District.
    Action by Louis Finkelstein against Samuel Kessler. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
    Argued before FREEDMAN, P. J., and GILDERSLEEVE and MacLEAN, JJ.
    Bennett & Silverman, for appellant.
    M. H. Hayman, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The judgment herein must be reversed. The written guaranty given by the defendant to the plaintiff, in which he became responsible for goods subsequently sold by plaintiff to one Abelsohn, did not need to express consideration. Chapter 464, p. 802, Laws 1863; Evansville Nat. Bank v. Kaufman, 93 N. Y. 273, 45 Am. Rep. 204; Everson v. Gere, 122 N. Y. 293, 25 N. E. 492.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.  