Case Name: John Watson vs. George A. Perrigo
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1895-01-26
Citations: 87 Me. 202
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Watson vs. George A. Perrigo.
Judges: Sitting: Peters, C. J., Emery, Foster, Whitehouse, Wiswell, Strout, JJ.
Reporter: Maine Reports
Volume: 87
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
John Watson vs. George A. Perrigo.
Aroostook.
Opinion January 26, 1895.
Action. 8tat. of Frauds. F. 8., c. Ill, § 1.
Where a debtor delivers current funds to a third party to enable him to pay the creditor the debt, and such third party in consideration thereof, promises to pay the debt, he is liable in a proper action directly to the creditor, if he afterward upon demand refuses to pay.
The statute of frauds requiring a promise to pay the debt of another to be in writing does not apply to such a case. By taking the debtor’s money he makes the debt his own.
On exceptions.
This wras an action of assumpsit referred to the presiding justice with the right to except. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant excepted.
The case is stated in the opinion.
V. B. Wilson and G. A. Gorham, Jr., for plaintiff.
G. A. Perrigo, for defendant.
Sitting: Peters, C. J., Emery, Foster, Whitehouse, Wiswell, Strout, JJ.

Opinion:
Emery, J.
The ultimate facts found by the presiding justice are these : A debtor of the plaintiff promised him to place the amount of his debt in the hands of the defendant to be by him paid to the plaintiff'. Afterwards this debtor did place in the defendant's hands the requisite sum, and requested him to pay it to the plaintiff which the defendant promised to do. Later still the defendant informed the plaintiff' that he had received that sum of the debtor for him, and would soon pay it over. He did not pay it over however, and the plaintiff after a demand for the money, brought this action of assumpsit to recover it from the defendant.
The defendant contends that his promise was without consideration, and further that it was a promise to pay the debt of another, and hence invalid by the statute of frauds.
It is evident that he received a consideration for his promise, and that his promise was to pay his own obligation.
Exceptions overruled.