
    Philip Decker, App’lt, v. David Hammond, Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed February 8, 1892.)
    
    Guaranty—Cohsidbbatiok.
    Plaintiff having a claim against one of defendant's employees, the latter promised to pay a certain sum weekly and authorized defendant to pay these amounts, and it was claimed that defendant agreed to become responsible for and guarantee the debt. The authority to pay was after-wards withdrawn. Held, that no consideration for the guaranty being shown, it was not binding upon defendant.
    Appeal from judgment of the Orange county court, reversing judgment of justice’s court in favor of plaintiff. Plaintiff held a judgment recovered upon a board bill against one Wyncoop, who was employed by defendant. Nine years after its recovery an 1 execution was issued thereon and the constable with plaintiff’s attorney visited defendant’s place and saw Wyncoop and defendant. Wyncoop agreed to pay a certain sum per week until the claim was paid,' and signed an instrument authorizing defendant to pay said sums, and defendant then paid ten dollars thereon. It was claimed that defendant at the same time executed an instrument, agreeing to become responsible for the debt and to guarantee the same; which was denied by defendant. Mo such paper was produced, but plaintiff’s attorney testified to what he claimed were the contents thereof.
    
      ■Wilton JBennet, for app’lt; Howell, Parsha.ll & Schofield, for resp’t.
   Pratt, J.

There is an entire failure to show that the alleged agreement of defendant to become responsible for the debt of Wynltoop was based upon any consideration.

A guaranty, like any other agreement, to be valid, must be-based upon a consideration.

There was no legal basis to sustain the verdict of the jury,, which was properly set aside by the county judge.

Order appealed from reversed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J., concur.  