West v. Hosea

5 Del. 232

Opinion

The Court.

1. The suit was not against West, as administrator, and could not be. It was upon a promise by West personally, and not as administrator.

2. Neither is this a promise to answer for the default of another. The promise was not to Hosea to pay the debt or default of another; but a promise to Burton to indemnify him against Hosea’s claim; or to pay the amount of Hosea’s execution.

Layton,, for plaintiff. Salisbury, for defendant.

3. But such a promise, in either aspect of it, was not a promise which Hosea could sue upon. The suit must be in Burton’s name, though the money, if recovered, would be for the use of Hosea; a recovery in this action would not protect West from a suit by Burton, nor Burton from a suit by Hosea.

The plaintiff was nonsuited.