Little can or need be added to wbat was said in the two opinions filed in the case of Peele v. Powell, 156 N. C., 553, 73 S. E., 234, on rehearing, 161 N. C., 50, 76 S. E., 698, on the difference between an original promise, which is not within the statute of frauds, and a superadded one, which is within the statute. C. S., 987. The difference in statement is clear enough. Difficulty often arises, however, in determining whether the evidence in a given case places it in the one category or the other. Gennett v. Lyerly, 207 N. C., 201, 176 S. E., 275; Garren v. Youngblood, 207 N. C., 86, 176 S. E., 252. The solution, in such instances, generally lies in summoning the aid of a jury. Whitehurst v. Padgett, 157 N. C., 424, 73 S. E., 240. And so, in the instant case, we think the evidence is susceptible of an interpretation which requires its submission to the twelve. Taylor v. Lee, 187 N. C., 393, 121 S. E., 659.
On demurrer to the evidence or motion to nonsuit under the Hinsdale Act, C. S., 567, the plaintiff is entitled to a liberal view of evidence. Lincoln v. R. R., 207 N. C., 787, 178 S. E., 601. Discrepancies and contradictions, even in jdaintiff’s evidence, are matters for the jury, and not for the court. Newby v. Realty Co., 182 N. C., 34, 108 S. E., 323; Shell v. Roseman, 155 N. C., 90, 71 S. E., 86.
The true character of a promise, whether original or superadded, does not depend altogether on the form of expression. The situation of the parties should be considered and whether they understood it to be collateral or direct. Dale v. Lbr. Co., 152 N. C., 651, 68 S. E., 134; Davis v. Patrick, 141 U. S., 479; Emerson v. Slater, 63 U. S., 28.