408 FBDEBA.L BEPOBTEB. �"On settlement this day of Bigler claim, total �amount - - $5,257 79 �Paid as foUows — �Kept back for Turck à Burhaus the �Bum of $1,200 00 �For ïobias New the sum of - - 600 79 �1,800 79 ���Gave Ward this sum, $3,457 00 �In two notes for one and two months — half each. �June 12, 1878. This settlement made in presence of Mr. �Burhaus, Mr. Ward, and myself, at my office. �"John J. Borchell, "L. G. Wakd, �"TUBOK & BUEHA.US." �Tobias New was another party to whom Bigler & Co. were indebted for work on the ice-house. �This contract, I think, is to be construed as containing a promise, on the part of the bankrupt, to pay these claimants $1,200 on account of Bigler's debt to them. It is objected to by the assignee on the grounds that the pi-omise was with- out consideration, and that it was a promise to pay the debt of another. The time given to the bankrupt for the balance of $3,457, for which Ward took his notes, was an ample con- sideration for this promise to pay the claimants; and if the promise were a promise to pay the debt of another, it was yalid, being in wnting and made upon a new consideration. It is also urged that the agreement was void because Bigler & Co. were not parties to it. I think, however, there is nothing in this objection, Ward, as assignee of this debt, which was overdue, had power, as it seems to me, to make this arrangement for its payment. He could authorize a part of the money which he was entitled to exact of Burchell to go to Turck & Burhaus, if he saw fit. It may be that if he did so Bigler & Co. could make him account for it as received by himself, but this could not make the promise to pay his appointee instead of himself illegal. It is also claimed that the promise to pay Turck & Burhaua was ����
