Case Name: John Jackson against William Rayner
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1815-08
Citations: 12 Johns. 291
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Jackson against William Rayner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 12
Pages: 291–291

Head Matter:
John Jackson against William Rayner.
A promise topa^ pti°m'j®bt °0fna in'.writiug, fog it is matte on a sufficient consideration.
Where A.gave a promisl anl&toíd g! {!^n h|n ha* pPSoP™rty0fand meant^to pay would pay the from ¿ a., ‘it ttm promise'of Statute of frauds.
IN ERROR, on certiorari, to a justice’s court. Michael Jackson, son of the plaintiff in error, gave his promissory note to Samuel Edson, or order, which was endorsed by Edson to WilHam Rayner, plaintiff below.
-r-. , , , _ , , , . Rayner sued Michael Jackson, by warrant, upon the note; and, when the constable was about to serve the warrant, John Jackson, the defendant below, told the constable “ not to serve it, for he, the defendant below, would pay the debt, if an honest one.’’ Upon which the plaintiff below expressed his satisfaction, and withdrew that suit.
Soon afterwards, the defendant below saw the constable again, and requested him to tell Rayner, the plaintiff below, “to give himself no further trouble about it, for he would pay the debt; as he had taken his son Michael’s property, and meant his honest debts.”
"This suit was for the amount of that note; and there being no note, in writing, of the new promise, the defendant below relied on the statute of frauds, and objected to the paroi proof above stated.
The justice overruled the objection, and gave judgment for the plaintiff below. , *

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The fair construction of the paroi proofs in this case, is, that the defendant below had received an assignment of his son's property, in trust, for the payment of his son's debts; and, from that fund, he promised to pay the debt now in question. He is to be regarded as a trustee for the creditors of his son ; and his absolute promise to this creditor, is evidence that the fund was adequate. But, the original debt of the sort was still subsisting; and, according to the decision in.the case of Simpson v. Patten, (4 Johns. Rep. 422.) and the authorities there cited, it seems, well settled, that a promise to pay the debt of a third person must be in writing, notwithstanding it is made on a sufficient consideration.
The judgment must, therefore, be reversed.