Case Name: SHIELDS v. MIDDLETON
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1820-06
Citations: 21 F. Cas. 1311
Docket Number: 
Parties: SHIELDS v. MIDDLETON.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Cases
Volume: 21
Pages: 1311–1311

Head Matter:
Case No. 12,786.
SHIELDS v. MIDDLETON.
[2 Cranch, C. C. 205.]
Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
June Term, 1820.
Statute or Kbauds — Debt or Another — Acceptance or Order.
A verbal acceptance of an order, drawn at the foot of the account of a third person against the drawer, is not a promise to "pay the debt of another, within the statute of frauds.
Assumpsit, against the acceptor of Bates’ bill on the defendant, which was in this form: “Washington, December, 1817. Mr. Bates, to James Shields, Dr. To 32 brls. lime, at $3 per brl., $96.00. Mr. J. S. Middleton — Sir: Please to pay the above bill and oblige. Tours, respectfully, Reuben Bates.”
Mr. Caldwell, for defendant,
objected that this is a promise to pay the debt of. another, and that as the promise to pay was not in writing, it was void by the statute of frauds.

Opinion:
But
THE COURT
(nem. con.) instructed the jury that this order was a bill of exchange, that the defendant's promise to pay it was equivalent to an acceptance, and that such an acceptance was not within the statute.