
    Brown vs. Bussey.
    When the payee of a note ol* bill single endorses it for a valuable consideration, upon a new and original undertaking between himself as endorser and the endorsee, and guaranties the payment thereof — debt will lie upon the guaranty. See Hall vs. Rogers,' ante, p. 536, ex. gr. Brown brought an action of debt against Bussey on the following endorsement “I guarantee the payment of the within note to A. Brown, for value received.” Held, that the action was properly brought.
    Hamilton Bussey was summoned to answer Andrew Brown, who sues for the use of B. Richmond, in an action of debt, in the Circuit Court of Shelby county. The declaration contained two counts; the first averring the making of a particular note by one David Boyd, payable to the defendant, and that the defendant afterwards, &c., endorsed the same, and guarantied the payment thereof to the plaintiff. The second count also avers the making of the note and its transfer, but sets out the note and endorsement in hose verla. The defendant pleaded nil debet, upon which issue was taken.
    The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, but the court arrested the judgment upon motion of the defendant.
    The plaintiff brought up the record by writ of error.
    The endorsement of the defendant is in these vrords: “I guarantee the payment of the within note to Andrew Brown, for value received.
    May 11th, 1837. H. BUSSEY.”
    
      J. Wiclcersham, for the plaintiff
    The objection that debt will not lie on an endorsement, does not apply here, because this is neither a collateral nor contingent liability, it is in effect a direct undertaking by the defendant, that he will pay the note, which places him on the same footing as if he was a joint maker. If the guaranty had been, that Boyd would pay the note, or that he was solvent, the case would be different.
    This guaranty is a waiver of the demand and notice (Taylor and Williams vs. Ross, 3 Yerg. R. 330) necessary to fix the liability of the endorser, which is the only objection to debt on-an endorsement. McGuire vs. Blanton, 5 Hum. R. 361.
    
      In the case of Baijley vs. Hazard, 3 Yerg. R. 489, it is decided that debt will lie on a guaranty, much less a direct undertaking to pay than this. And in, Tajypan & Perhins vs. Campbell, 9 Yerg. R. 436, the last mentioned case is received and recognized as law, which it seems should settle the question. /
    The defendant’s liability comes within the law merchant, stripped of the conditions objectionable to debt; hence no consideration is necessary to be alledged or proved; but as to proving a consideration, the finding of the jury settles that,
   Turley, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

On the 16th day of January, 1839, David Boyd executed his promissory note for $55 64, due three days after date, to Hamilton Bussey. This note Hamilton Bussey, on the 11th day of May, 1839, endorsed to Andrew Brown, and guarantied the payment. Brown sued Bussey upon the guaranty and obtained a verdict against him, upon which the judgment was arrested by the Circuit Judge, and a writ of error is therefor prosecuted to this court.

The question presented for our consideration, is whether an action of debt will lie upon this guaranty, and we are clear that it will.

We have held at the present term of this court, in the case of Hall vs. Rogers, that such a guaranty is not a collateral undertaking to pay the debt of another, but a direct and immediate contract between the guarantor and guarantee, which need not be in writing, but may be established by parol proof. It follows as a corollary from this decision, that debt will lie upon this guaranty, it being a contract of liability, direct and immediate, for the payment of a specific sum in numero, as the sum of $55 64, the amount of the note. ^

Judgment reversed and given for the plaintiff upon the verdict for principal, and interest, and cost.  