Zeeman v. Rosenthal ( 1900 )

Per Curiam.

The promise of defendant was not a promise to answer for the debt or default of another. It was an original promise. It was not necessary that it should have been in writing.

We think that no error was committed, and the judgment must he affirmed, with costs.

Present: Fitzsimons, Ch. J., Conlan and Hascall, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.