Williams v. Bacon, 2 Gray, 387, 393. White v. Dahlquist Manuf. Co. 179 Mass. 427, 431. Jacobson v. Perman, 238 Mass. 445, 448. Feinberg v. Poorvu, 249 Mass. 88, 93. The defendant was to become the owner of the notes, Nelson v. Boynton, 3 Met. 396, 402, Hill v. Grat, 247 Mass. 25, 27, P. Berry Sons, Inc. v. Central Trust Co. 247 Mass. 241, 245, Washington Devonshire Realty Co. Inc. v. Freedman, 263 Mass. 554, 560, and if the receivers referred to in the letter should pay them, the obligation of the plaintiff to assign them might arise within one year from the date of the agreement. Flynn v. Caplan, 234 Mass. 516, 520. Bolton v. VanHeusen, 249 Mass. 503, 506.

er had any opportunity to return it, and never saw Doyle after the note was returned by a bank to which it had been given for collection. He further testified that when the defendant Smith promised to pay him if he would finish the job, he (Smith) said, "You go and finish the job, I have plenty of money left over, you finish the job and you will get your pay from me." Although the evidence upon the issue whether the plaintiff accepted the defendants as his debtors in place of Robert A. Doyle Company, Inc., and released the company is close, yet in consideration of all the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, it was a question for the jury whether the plaintiff gave up and released the company and relied on the defendants solely for the payment of the amount due him. Griffin v. Cunningham, 183 Mass. 505. Paul v. Wilbur, 189 Mass. 48. McNulty v. Cruff, 211 Mass. 489. Pope Cottle Co. v. Wheelwright, 240 Mass. 221. Kirtley v. C.G. Galbo Co. Inc. 244 Mass. 179. Hill v. Grat, 247 Mass. 25, 27. Sullivan v. McEttrick, 248 Mass. 496. Hammond Coal Co. Inc. v. Lewis, 248 Mass. 499. Exceptions overruled.

Dean v. Tallman, 105 Mass. 443. Alexander v. Dove, 231 Mass. 362. See Hill v. Grat, 247 Mass. 25. The fact that the coal was charged to the laundry company on the plaintiff's books was not, in view of all the evidence, conclusive against the plaintiff's right to recover upon the defendant's promise. Swift v. Pierce, 13 Allen, 136. Dean v. Tallman, supra. Downs v. Perkin, supra.

It is unnecessary to consider the question of a novation, even if it should be found that the corporation was originally liable for her services. See Kirtley v. C. G. Galbo Co. Inc. 244 Mass. 179; Hill v. Grat, 247 Mass. 25. There is nothing in the cases relied on by the defendant in conflict with what is here decided.