
    Osmund Woodward vs. James B. Pickett.
    A written agreement to pay the debt of another, as required by the statute of frauds, need not contain the consideration upon which it is founded.
    Were it otherwise, the words “ value received” are a sufficient statement of a consideration.
    The defendant had endorsed on two notes of one Williamson, to the plaintiff “ I guarantee the payment, &c., for value received.” This promise is not nudum pactum. The words “ value received” import a consideration.
    BEFORE EARLE, J., AT FAIRFIELD, FALL TERM, 1837.
    Assumpsit on the guaranty of two notes of hand drawn by R. W. Williamson and Thomas T. Williamson, and payable to the plaintiff; one of them was for three hundred and fifty dollars, and the other .for two hundred and seventy-five dollars; both were due on the first of January, 1834. A written guaranty signed by the defendant, was endorsed on both, in these words: “ October 10,1835. I hereby guaranty the payment of the within note, provided it is not paid on or' before the first day of January, 1837 — for value received.”
    It was proved by a witness who was about to purchase the notes, but who thought it advisable to speak to Pickett before doing so, that Pickett said he was responsible and would see them paid: that he was going to the West, and would see the Williamsons, and on his return would pay them. One of the Williamsons left the State in 1832 or 1833, and had not since been in Fairfield, though it was understood that he had been in Spartanburg!!. The other left the State on the 10th of October, 1835, the date of the guaranty.
    It was urged for the defendant that a consideration should be alleged and proved, and that the promise was void by the statute of frauds.
    The presiding judge was of opinion, and so instructed the jury, that the words “ value received,” furnished a sufficient answer to both objections, even if a consideration were necessary to be stated; and he directed the jury to find for the plaintiff.
    
      The defendant gave notice that he would move the Court of Appeals for a nonsuit, and (in case that he should be refused,) for a new trial, on the following grounds:
    1st. Because the defendant’s promise was void by the statute of frauds.
    2d. Because it was without consideration, and therefore void.
    
      Clarke & McDowell, for the motion.
    
      Pearson & Rice, contra.
   Curia, per Evans, J.

In the case of Givens ads. Tiler, decided in Charleston, January, 1836, it was held, that the written agreement to pay the debt of another required by the fourth section of the statute of frauds, need not contain the consideration upon which the agreement is founded. This was the opinion of the whole Court, then consisting of all the law judges and the chancellors. By that case, Wain vs. Warlters, 5 East, 10, and our own case on the same point, were overruled. But even whilst Wain vs. Warlters, was unshaken, and its authority unquestioned, it was decided in Aiken vs. Duren, that these words, “ value received,” were a sufficient consideration. These words are an acknowledgment in writing, that the defendant has received a valuable consideration for his promise. A promise can never be regarded as nuclum pactum, against the express acknowledgment of the promiser to the contrary. I will not say that such an acknowledgment precludes him from showing, by proof, that there was in fact no consideration. That question is not involved in this case; no such proof was offered.  