Case Name: Shields v. Middleton
Court: United States Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1820-06
Citations: 2 Cranch 205
Docket Number: 
Parties: Shields v. Middleton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia (District of Columbia - reported by Mackey)
Volume: 2
Pages: 205–205

Head Matter:
Shields v. Middleton.
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 Bates1 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 yours, respectfully, Reuben Bates.”
Mr. Caldwell, for the defendant
objected that this is a promise to pay the debt of another, and that as the promise to pay was not in writing, ft 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,;Tand that such an acceptance is not within the statute.