cf. Mazzotta v. Gora, 19 Conn. Sup. 96, 110 A.2d 295. Since there was no discussion as to the specific nature of appellant's promise, the implication is to the contrary. Indeed under such circumstances it has been held that the collateral character of the promise is conclusive. Mazzotta v. Gora, supra; King v. Schmall, 156 Neb. 635, 57 N.W.2d 287; Throckmorton v. Robinson, Tex.Civ. App., 83 S.W.2d 696. If, however, the subsequent conduct of the parties is examined no facts can be found from which can be derived an intention to charge appellant as an original promisor.