¶1 The jury find in their special verdict that anote for money which was used in hiring a substitute in'the Confederate army ; was executed by defendant and Davis as surety, «to Blaeknall, who assigned the same to Harwell. Several years afterwards this note wa3 paid off at its scaled value by the surety Davis, at the request of his principal Smith.; and tbe note which is the subject of this action, was executed by. «Smith to Davis, who assigned the same to the plaintiff.
¶2 This is a new and independant contract, founded upon the «■consideration of money paid at the request of the defendant by .Davis, and his knowledge of the illegality of the original bond ■does not vitiate this new transaction. Questions of this character have been the subject of much discussion and somé con-fact in the English Courts, and some of the leading cases were ■ably and elaborately reviewed by Chief Justice Marshall in the case of Armstrong v. Toler, 11 Wheaton 258, and the principle governing their case is distinctly enunciated.
¶3 “The proposition stated by Lord Mansfield, in Faikney v. Reynous, that if one person pay the debts of another at his request, an action may be sustained to recover the money, although the original contract was unlawful, goes far in deciding the question now before the Court. That the person who paid the money knew it was paid in discharge of a debt not recoverable at law has never been held to alter the case.
¶4 A subsequent express promise is, undoubtedly, equivalent to to a previous request.”
¶5*403 There was error in the ruling of His Honor, and there must be judgment in this Court for the plaintiff on the special verdict.
¶6 Pee Ctjeiam. Judgment reversed.