Case Name: Frederick Cleveland, plaintiff in error, against Hugh Farley, defendant in error
Court: New York Court of Errors
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1827-12
Citations: 9 Cow. 639
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frederick Cleveland, plaintiff in error, against Hugh Farley, defendant in error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Cowen's Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 669–669

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
*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.