
    Havens vs. Griffin.
    Dec. adjourned term, 1789.
    An agreement shall bind after draffc made*
    The declaration consisted of two' counts, 1st, on an 7 order accepted ; 2d, for money had and received.
    It appeared in evidence, that at-, on --, the plaintiff and defendant, and one, Sever, were in company. The plaintiff was endeavoring to procure payment on a small note, which he held against Sever. The defendant said, “ Get an order on me, and I will pay it.” Sever drew an order on G., the defendant, for the amount of the note, and H., the plaintiff, gave up the note. II. then turned to G. and said, “ Here will you pay it ?” G. replied, “ Give me the order.” Took it, and wrote on it that he would pay it when he, G., should collect so much of one Taylor, against whom he had a demand in favor of Sever. II. said it was not the agreement. G. said, “ It will not hurt you.”
    For G. it was insisted that he was bound by the written acceptance only; and as he had collected nothing of Taylor, he was not bound to pay.
   But

the Court held

that G. was bound by his agreement to pay unconditionally; that he could not after-wards accept uto pay m a different manner, or on tingency.

Accordingly there was a

Verdict for the plaintiff.  