ambler case Tomlinson against gill in chancery Nov see Lloyds v Harper Ch d in  re Flavell Murray v Flavell Ch d one promise if the widow of the intestate  will permit he to be join with her in the letter of administration he will  make good any deficiency of asset to pay debt hold the promise be bind and not  within the statute of fraud lib Reg b foe b nom Tombleson v Gill the defendant  Gill promise that if the widow of the intestate John Gill will permit he to be  join with her in the letter of administration of his asset he will make good  any deficient of asset to discharge the intestate debt bill by creditor of the  intestate against Gill for a satisfaction of their debt and performance of the  promise it be insist on the part of the defendant to be within the statute of  fraud and perjury and that the promise not be in write be void by that statute  Lord Hardwicke chancellor there be two question saint on the right d on the  remedy the bill be find on a argument which be not unusual where there be a  contest about obtain administration it be not uncommon upon such occasion for  the simple contract creditor to agree that administration shall be grant to a  specialty creditor upon term of his agree to pay the debt equal and acquire  step such agreement be seldom put into write v I be of opinion this be not  within the statute of fraud it be not within the first branch of the section  for Gill be not administrator at the time of make the promise and it be no  answer to say that he be administrator afterward it be not within the second  branch of that clause the modern determination have make a distinction between  a promise to pay the original debt and on the foot of the original contract  ambler er p and where it be on a new consideration the distinction take in  Buckmire v darnel Mod salk Lord raym be a very slight and cobweb distinction  the judge be much divide upon the question I agree with the many here be quite  a new distinct consideration read v Nash be strong to the purpose ambler d  question the plaintiff be proper for relief here for two reason saint he can  not maintain a action at law for the promise be make to the widow but he be  proper here for the promise be for the benefit of the creditor and the widow  be a trustee for they dly the bill be bring for a account and that draw to it  relief like the common ease of a bill to be pay out of asset it be at first  doubt whether the court shall go further than to take the account but it be  afterward settle that the court ought not to make two suit out of one but give  complete satisfaction on such a bill by decree the debt to be pay see jesus  college v bloom ante p see the authority of this case recognize by Lord  Northington in Griffith v Sheffield Eden and by sir William grant master of  the roll in Gregory v William mere joint administration be accord take out and  the defendant Robert Gill with the widow possess himself of the estate of the  intestate defendant Robert Gill by his answer submit to account for the estate  receive by he decree declare the creditor of the intestate entitle in this  court to have the benefit of the contract enter into by the defendant Robert  Gill with the defendant Catherine Gill before take out letter of  administration reference to take a account of debt of the intestate and the  estate receive by the defendant such personal estate to be apply in due course  of administration and in case the personal estate be not sufficient then it be  order that the defendant Robert gild do pay to the plaintiff and the several  other creditor of the say ill estate so much money as the personal estate  shall fall short to answer their several debt respective the consideration of  cost reserve l r