The first question involved: In this case, upon the pleadings and the evidence, should the court have charged the jury as to the statute of frauds, and especially as to that section that deals with the answering for the debt, default, or miscarriage of another person? We think not.
On the present record, in regard to the first cause of action, the question as to the defendant pleading the statute of frauds, C. S., 987, it is not necessary to discuss. The jury found both issues against defendant and one is sufficient to sustain the judgment. We may say though that the promise alleged and procured by plaintiff is an original and independent one and does not come within the statute of frauds.
*828Tbe second question: Upon the defendant’s motion for judgment of nonsuit, was there sufficient evidence of fraud to be submitted to the jury? C. S., 561. We think this question must be answered in the affirmative.
From a careful reading of the record, we think there was sufficient competent evidence to be submitted to the jury. It was a question of fact and the lines - sharply drawn between the testimony of plaintiff and the defendant. The jury took plaintiff’s version and we are bound by the finding. As to the competency of the evidence complained of and the charge of the court below, we can see no prejudicial or reversible error.
No error.