Appeal from the Sixth Judicial District for the County of Sacramento.

The suit was brought upon a contract set forth in the complaint, which .recites that an execution had been placed in the hands of the sheriff of Sacramento county, against William Twist and William Stout, in favour of A. D. Happe, with instruction to levy, &c., on goods that defendant alleges did not belong to said William Stout, and that the judgment on which the execution was issued, was rendered without'authority of law; and for the purpose of procuring a stay of the said execution, and in consideration of $50 in hand paid to Jacob Stout, the defendant, he agreed to become responsible individually, for the amount specified in the said execution, with costs, &c., to be paid to the plaintiff in the said execution, within sixty days from the date, unless before that time the said execution shall have been satisfied by the defendants therein, or the judgment upon which the said execution issued should be reversed, or the goods be declared to be the property of some other person than the defendant in the execution; and avers that the sixty days had expired, the money being unpaid, the judgment not reversed, nor the goods declared to be the property of any other person, and therefore that the defendant is bound to pay to the plaintiff $1200, &c.

Defendant’s answer denies his indebtedness, &c., and avers that he never received any consideration for signing the said obligation; and that the $50 was never paid to him. And avers that no valid judgment or execution ever did exist against the said William Twist and William Stout; and that no valid executlon was in the hands of the sheriff on the 9th of May, 1851, when the said contract was executed.

March 15th, 1852. The case was referred by consent; and in the hearing several exceptions were taken, but two of which were considered by the Supreme Court. The referee reported in favour of the plaintiff, $1484.67, upon which judgment was entered, and this appeal taken.

In the argument of the case before the referee, it was insisted by defendant’s counsel, 1st. That the complaint did not aver any forbearance or other consideration, on which to support an undertaking.

2nd. That the undertaking of defendant was within the 13th section of the act concerning fraudulent conveyances and contracts, and void: both of which points the referee decided for the plaintiff, and defendant excepted.