Runde v. Runde

Citations

• 59 Ill. 98

Syllabus

<p>1. Statute of frauds—promise to pay the debt of another. A, being indebted to B, executed to him a promissory note for a sum larger than the indebtedness, and secured the same by a chattel mortgage on property fully worth the amount of the note. For the excess of the sum secured by the mortgage over the actual indebtedness, A was to receive from B certain lumber, but which he never received. A afterwards became indebted to 0, hut being in embarrassed circumstances could not pay him, all his property being covered by the mortgage, which B had proceeded, or was about to proceed, to foreclose. The three parties met together, and to satisfy the claim of C, an arrangement was made by which the demand A had on B for the difference between his actual indebtedness and that expressed in the mortgage,, was.compromised at the sum A owed O, B agreeing to pay the same to 0: Sold, B’s promise in that regard was not within the statute of frauds..</p> <p>2. Recovery under the common counts. And C was entitled to recover on the same, under the common counts in assumpsit. The' promise of B being regarded as' an original undertaking to pay his own debt, to 0, it was unnecessary to declare specially.</p>