Evans v. Griffin

• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: POWELL
• Citation: Evans v. Griffin, 1 Ga.App. 327, 57 S.E. 921 (Ga. App. 1907)
• Decision Date: 28 February 1907
• Docket Number: (No. 124.)
• Parties: EVANS v. GRIFFIN.

57 S.E. 921

1 Ga.App. 327

EVANS

v.GRIFFIN.

(No. 124.)

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Feb. 28, 1907.

Frauds, Statute of—Debt of Another— Original Undertaking.

Where A., in consideration of a sum of money loaned him by B., promises to do labor for B. until such money is repaid, and C, whodesiros A. released from that contract, orally promises to pay B. the money which has so been loaned, in consideration of B.'s surrendering his contract with A., the contract between B. and C. is an original undertaking, and is not required to be in writing under the statute of frauds.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 23, Frauds, Statute of, § 50.]

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from Superior Court, Putnam County; Lewis, Judge.

Action by one Griffin against one Evans. Verdict for plaintiff. Petition for certiorari was overruled, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

W. T. Davidson, for plaintiff in error.

Turner & Adams, for defendant in error.

POWELL, J. Griffin sued Evans in the justice's court on the following account "To amount of account advanced to Will Jordan, $39.46." The defendant pleaded the statute of frauds. The evidence was: In 1905 Jordan was working with Griffin as a cropper. In the fall Jordan procured money from Griffin, promising to remain in his service until he repaid him with labor In December Evans came to Griffin and told him that he had hired Jordan for the year 1906, to which Griffin replied that it would be all right, but that Jordan owed him $39.42, and Evans said, "Well, I will pay it before I move him." At the time he moved Jordan, Evans told Griffin that he had not sold his cotton, but that he would pay the amount as soon as he sold the cotton. He did not pay the sum so promised. The promise was oral. The plaintiff testified that, while he had not marked the account on his books against Jordan settled, yet he no longer considered or claimed that he still retained the indebtedness against him. The jury in the justice's court found a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant brought certiorari, which was overruled. To this the defendant excepts.

The "promise to answer for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another, " required by the statute of frauds (Civ. Code 1895, § 2693, par. 2) to be evidenced by writing, and not otherwise, is that collateral contract by which the second promisor becomes bound along with the original promisor, and does not include an original undertaking whereby a new promisor, for a valuable consideration between him and the promisee, substitutes...