Case ID: cow_9/html/0669-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "*Jones, Chancellor,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Frederick Cleveland, plaintiff in error, against Hugh Farley, defendant in error.
    ALBANY,
    Dec. 1827.
    Where a promise to pay the debt of a third person arises out of some new consideration of benefit to the promisor or harm to the promisee, moving to the promisor either from the promisee or -the original»debtor,. such promise is not within the statute of Bauds, (1 It. L. 78, s. 11,) though the original debt still -subsist, and remain entirely unaffected by the new agreement. Thus, where M. owed F.; and C.., in consideration that M. delivered him (C.) hay to the value of the debt, promised by paról to pay F. m,.held, that ■ this "promise was not within the statute.
    On error from the supreme court. 4 Co wen,.432, S. C. by the title of Farley v. Cleveland.
    The case was argued.here by ■
    
      J. Willard, for the plaintiff in error, and
    
      D. Russell & Z. R. Shipherd, contra.
   *Jones, Chancellor,

examined the question decided below; and was of opinion that the judgment should be affirmed. Whereupon,

Per totamrcuriam,

-Judgment affirmed. 
      
       See Galleger v. Brunel, 6 Cow. 350, 34ed., note.