#### E. S. FORD v. DeWITT MOORE.

(Filed 27 March, 1918.)

Statute of Frauds — Debt of Another — Promise—Consideration.

Where money and crop supplies are advanced to a father and son upon the promise of the father alone to pay for them, and accordingly the credit is extended at the time or thereafter, the transaction does not fall within the meaning of the statute of frauds requiring a writing, etc., for one to become bound for the debt, etc., of another; and when there is evidence of such transaction, a motion as of nonsuit should be denied.

Civil action- to recover a debt, tried before Lyon, J., at November Term, 1917, of Fbawklin. .

From a judgment of nonsuit plaintiff appealed.

W. H. Yarborough and Ben T. Holden for plaintiff.

W. II. Ruffin, Thomas W. Ruffin, and W. M. Person for defendant.

Beown, J.

This action is brought to recover $592.99 for money, supplies, and a horse alleged to have been furnished to defendant and his son, John D. Moore. At the close of the evidence, the court, being of opinion that there is no evidence that the credit was extended to defendant, or that he was the original promissor, and the contract not being in writing, sustained a motion to nonsuit.

There is evidence that in the beginning of the year 1914 this defend-' ant went to plaintiff, a merchant engaged in the mercantile and livestock business, and made a contract with plaintiff for advances for him*261self and bis son, John Moore; tbat defendant obtained $34 in casb at once to pay bis son’s account at McKennis’; tbat be purchased a borse for bim, and tbat plaintiff advanced during tbe year to tbe son feed supplies and some money witb wbicb to make a crop.

There is evidence tbat at tbe time of tbe arrangement defendant told plaintiff tbat be did not wish bis son to know tbat be was helping bim. For tbe protection of defendant, tbe plaintiff caused tbe son to execute a crop lien and chattel mortgage. Tbe advances were charged on tbe boobs to tbe defendant, D'eWitt Moore and John D. Moore.

We are of opinion tbat ’the court erred in sustaining tbe motion to nonsuit.

There is abundant evidence to go to tbe jury tbat tbe promise of defendant was made before tbe debt was created; tbat tbe credit was extended solely to bim, and tbat if any credit was extended to tbe son it was in tbe capacity of a joint principal witb bis father. Morrison v. Baker, 81 N. C., 81; Sheppard v. Newton, 139 N. C., 536.

It is immaterial tbat tbe account was charged on tbe books against both father and son, if tbe credit was extended to tbe former., Tbe obligation of tbe promissor is binding if made at tbe time or before tbe debt is contracted when tbe credit is extended to bim or to both bim and bis eodebtor. Peele v. Powell, 156 N. C., 553; Worthington v. Frizelle & Joly, 93 S. E., 776.

Reversed.