Appeal from the Ninth District, County of Siskiyou.

This was an action to recover a sum of money. The facts, as alleged in the complaint, are as follow :

Some time in the year 1856, J. A. Ripson sold to Matthias Woolsey an undivided one-sixth interest in a mining claim, and placed Woolsey in possession. The transfer was in writing ; Woolsey was to pay six hundred dollars, so soon as his share of the claim should yield that amount of money, after deducting one dollar per day for expenses. On the sixth day of November, 1856, Ripson assigned to plaintiff his claim on Woolsey for six hundred dollars, the amount Woolsey had agreed to pay for the interest purchased' by him. After this assignment from Ripson to plaintiff of the debt on Woolsey, the latter sold the one-sixth interest, which he had purchased of Ripson, to the defendants in this suit, at the same price and upon the same terms as those upon which he had purchased of Ripson. Both Woolsey and the defendants had notice of the assignment from Ripson to plaintiff, and at the time of the sale from Woolsey to the defendants; and in consideration of such sale, and in further consideration that plaintiff would accept them as his debtors, and discharge Woolsey, the defendants undertook and promised to pay to plaintiff six hundred dollars, as soon as the one-sixth interest purchased by them should yield or be entitled to that sum, after deducting one dollar per day for expenses. The complaint avers that the one-sixth of the claim purchased by defendants has yielded more than six hundred dollars, after deducting one dollar per day for expenses; and also avers, that on the-day of May or June, 1858, the defendants sold and parted with their entire interest in the one-sixth of the claim purchased by them of Woolsey, but have failed and refused to pay the six hundred dollars to plaintiff. This complaint was filed October 16th, 1858. To this complaint the defendants demurred on the grounds :

First. That it appears upon the face of the complaint, that the cause of action accrued more than two years prior to the commencement of the action; and,

Second. That the agreement of the defendants to pay plaintiff the six hundred dollars, was void under the Statute of Frauds, being a promise on their part, not in writing, to pay the debt of another.

The Court below held that both grounds of demurrer were well taken, and gave judgment for the defendants, from which plaintiff appealed to this Court.