Source: https://chestofbooks.com/business/law/Handbook-Law-Of-Contracts/Statute-Of-Frauds-In-General-Part-3.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 22:45:09+00:00

Document:
(1) There must be either a present or prospective primary liability of a third person for which the promisor agrees to answer. He must not himself be or become primarily liable.
21 BELLOWS v. SOWLES, 57 Vt. 164. 52 Am. Rep. 118, Throckmorton, Cas. Contracts, 56. And see Feblinger v. Wood, 134 Pa. 517, 19 Atl. 74G; Wales v. Stout, 115 N. Y. 638, 21 N. E. 1027; Mackin v. Dwyer, 205 Mass. 472, 91 N. E. 893; Blake v. Robinson, 129 Iowa, 196, 105 N. W. 401. Bee "Frauds, Statute of" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 7-12; Cent. Dig. §§ 1-12.
22 Stebblna V. Smith, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 07: Pratt v. Humphrey, 22 Conn. 317. Bee "Frauds, statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 7-12; Cent. Dig. §§ 7-12.
(2) The liability of the third person, therefore, must continue.
(b) A promise which contemplates payment out of the debtor's property in the hands of the promisor is not within the statute.
(c) Nor is a promise to the debtor to pay his debt.
(d) Nor, according to the weight of authority, does the statute apply where the leading object of the promisor is to subserve some purpose of his own, and his promise is merely incidental.
(e) By the weight of authority a contract of indemnity is not within the statute, although if the promise is to answer for another's debt, it is within the statute, notwithstanding it is in the form of a contract of indemnity.
23 Kirkham v. Marter, 2 Barn. & Ald. 613, 18 E. C. L. 212, 21 Rev. Rep. 416; Turner v. Hubbell, 2 Day (Conn.) 457, 2 Am. Dee. 115; Mountstephen v. Lake-man, L. R. 7 Q. B. 202. A promise, however, to give notice to another before settling with a third party who is indebted to the promisee is not within the statute. Towne v. Grover, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 306. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 14,; Cent. Dig. § 14.
24 Mead v. Watson, 57 Vt. 426. And see Matson v. Wharam, 2 Term R. 80; Matthews v. Milton, 4 Yerg. (Tenn.) 576, 26 Am. Dec. 247. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 14; Cent. Dig. § 14.
25 Dexter v. Blanchard, 11 Allen (Mass.) 365; Brown v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank, 88 Tex. 265, 31 S. W. 285, 33 L. R. A. 359 and note. Contra, King v. Summitt, 73 Ind. 312, 38 Am. Rep. 145. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 14, 15; Cent. Dig. §§ 14-16.
(a) There must be either a present or prospective liability of a third person for which the promisor agrees to answer.28 If the promisor becomes himself primarily, and not collaterally, liable, the promise is not within the statute, though the benefit from the transaction accrues to a third person.29 If, for instance, two persons come into a store, and one buys, and the other, to gain him credit, promises the seller, "If he does not pay you, I will," this is a collateral undertaking, and must be in writing; but if he says, "Let him have the goods, and I will pay," or "I will see you paid," and credit is given to him alone, he is himself the buyer, and the undertaking is original.30 In other words, whether the promise in such a case is need not be in writing.34 To take the promise out of the statute, the original debtor's release must be absolute. If the creditor may still hold him liable at his option, the promise must be in writing.35 Novations fall within this class of agreements.
26 NUGENT v. WOLFE, 111 Pa. 471, 4 Atl. 15, 56 Am. Rep. 291, Throckmorton, Cas. Contracts, 62. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 21; Cent. Dig. § 88.
27 Butcher v. Andrews, Comberbach, 473 (Holt, C. J.). See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 20, 21; Cent. Dig. §§ 82, 88.
28 Mease v. Wagner, 1 McCord (S. C.) 395. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 15; Cent. Dig. §§ 15, 16.
29 Hargreaves v. Parsons, 13 Mees. & Wels. 561; Baldwin v. Hlers, 73 Ga. 739; Morris v. Osterhout, 55 Mich. 262, 21 N. W. 339; De Witt v. Root, 18 Neb. 507, 26 N. W. 3G0. Where an agent has become liable to his principal by leuding money contrary to Instructions, his guaranty of the loan is not within the statute. Crane v. Wheeler, 48 Minn. 207, 50 N. W. 1033. A promise by a married woman to pay her parent for her support was held a promise to pay her husband's debt. Perkins v. Westcoat, 3 Colo. App. 33S, 33 Pac. 139. See "Frauds, Statute of," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 28; Cent. Dig. §§ 18, 19.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 14
 § 14
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 14
 § 14
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 21
 § 88
 v. 
 v. 
 § 15
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 28