Iowa. Chapin v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co., 79 la. 582, 44 N. W. 820.

Massachusetts. Blanchard v. Page, 74 Mass. (8 Gray) 281.

Michigan. Strong v. Grand Trunk R. Co.. 15 Mich. 206, 93 Am. Dec. 184.

New York. Ellis v. Willard, 9 N. Y. 529; Meyer v. Peck, 28 N. Y. 590.

Ohio. Babcock v. May, 4 Ohio 335; Dean v. King, 22 0. S. 118.

South Carolina. Ferebee v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., - S. Car. - , 95 S. E. 349.

8 Grant v. Norway, 10 C. B. 665; The Lady Franklin, 75 U. S. (8 Wall.) the quantity actually received was less than that specified in the receipt; or that the condition in which they were received differ from that specified in the receipt.9 On the same principle a deposit slip issued by a bank,10 or an entry in a pass-book,11 or a memorandum acknowledging receipt of payment,12 or reciting the application of a payment,13 are none of them contractual in character.

The existence of certain facts may be agreed upon as the basis of the contract; or to be more exact, the parties may agree not to challenge the recital of the existence of such facts. Pull effect will be given to such contractual provision.14 If the carrier agrees to assume the risk as to the quantity of goods shipped, the statement in the bill of lading as to such quantity is contractual.15

325. 19 L. ed. 455; National Bank v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern R. Co., 44 Minn. 224, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566, 9 L. R. A. 263, 46 N. W. 342, 560.

9 Ferebee v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., - S. Car. - , 95 S. E. 349.

10 Iowa. Butler v. Farmers' National Bank, 173 la. 659, 155 N. W. 999.

New York. First National Bank v. Clark, 134 N. Y. 368, 17 L. R. A. 580, 32 N. E. 38.

Oklahoma. American Home Life Insurance Co. v. Citizens' State Bank, - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1918B, 296, 168 Ac. 437; American National Bank v. Funk, - Okra. - , 172 Ac. 1078.

Pennsylvania. Pool v. White, 175 Pa. St. 459, 34 Atl. 801.

South Carolina. Fort v. First National Bank, 82 S. Car. 427, 64 S. E. 405. Apparently contra, see Long v. Straus, 107 Ind. 94, 57 Am. Rep. 87, 6 N. E. 123, 7 N. E. 763.

11 Scotland. Commercial Bank v. Rhind, 3 Macq. H. L. Cas. 643.

Alabama. Anniston National Bank v. Howell, 116 Ala. 375, 22 So. 471.

Iowa. Anderson v. Leverich, 70 la. 741, 30 N. W. 39.

Kansas. Talcott v. First National Bank, 53 Kan. 480, 24 L. R. A. 737, 36 Ac. 1066.

Massachusetts. Union Bank v. Knapp, 20 Mass. (3 Pick.) 96, 15 Am. Dec. 181.

Michigan. Davis v. Lenawee Co. Savings Bank, 53 Mich. 163, 18 N. W. 629.

Missouri. Quattrochi Bros. v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, 89 Mo. App. 500.

New York. Mechanics' & Farmers' Bank v. Smith, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 115.

Contra: Manhattan Co. v. Lydig, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 377, 4 Am. Dec. 289; Mann Boudoir Sleeping Car Co. v. Dupre, 54 Fed. 646. 4 C. C. A. 540,

21 L. R. A. 289; Mulligan v. Smith. 13 Colo. App. 231, 57 Ac. 731.

12 Alabama. Williams v. Shows, 197 Ala. 596, 73 So. 99.

Illinois. Rand v. Scofield, 43 III. 167.

Kentucky. Foxworthy v. Adams, 136 Ky. 403, 27 L. R. A. (N.S.) 308, 124 S. W. 381.

Michigan. French v. Newberry, 124 Mich. 147, 82 N. W. 840.

Minnesota. McKinney v. Harvil, 36 Minn. 18, 8 Am. St. Rep. 640, 35 N. W. 668; McCaffery v. Burkhardt, 97 Minn. 1, 114 Am. St. Rep. 688, 105 N. W. 971.

Oklahoma. Robertson v. Vande-venter, 51 Okla. 561, 152 Ac. 107.

13 National Trust & Credit Co. v. Polk, 123 Ark. 24. 183 S. W. 195.

14 East Sioux Falls Quarry Co. v. Wisconsin Granite Co., 39 S. D. 301, 164 N. W. 77.

15 Rhodes v. Newhall, 126 N. Y. 574,

22 Am. St. Rep. 859, 27 N. E. 947.

An instrument may be in part a recital of fact and in part a contract upon valuable consideration or under seal. Each part of such an instrument is treated in accordance with its inherent nature, unaffected by the other part thereof.16 If an instrument acknowledges the existence of a debt and contains a promise to pay such debt, the promise is contractual in character.17 The contractual provisions of a certificate of deposit are not affected by the fact that a part of such instrument is a receipt.18

A receipt in full is a recital of fact as far as it states the amount actually due or the amount actually paid.19 It does not impose a contractual obligation as to the amount actually due,20 or as to the amount actually paid.21

16 Georgia. McElveen v. Southern Ry. Co.. 109 Ga. 249, 77 Am. St. Rep. 371, 34 S. E. 281.

Indiana. Louisville, Evansville & St. Louis R. R. Co. v. Wilson, 119 Ind. 352, 4 L. R. A. 244, 21 N. E. 341.

Louisiana. Sonia Cotton-Oil Co. v. The "Red River," 106 La. 42, 87 Am. St. Rep. 293, 30 So. 303.

Massachusetts. Porter v. Ocean S. S. Co., 223 Mass. 224, 111 X. E. 864.

Minnesota. National Bank v. Chicago, Burlington & Northern R. Co., 44 Minn. 224, 20 Am. St. Rep. 566, 9 L. R. A. 263, 46 N. W. 342, 560; Thompson v. Thompson. 78 Minn. 379, 81 N. W. 204, 81 N. W. 543.

New York. Coon v. Knap, 8 N. Y. 402, 59 Am. Dec. 502; Van Etten v. Newton, 134 N. Y. 143, 30 Am. St. Rep. 630, 31 N. E. 334.

North Dakota. Knapp v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste Marie Ry. Co., 34 N. D. 466, 159 N. W. 81.

Oklahoma. Robertson v. Vande-venter, 51 Okla. 561, 152 Pac. 107.

Oregon. Milos v. Covacevich, 40 Or. 239. 66 Pac. 914.

Pennsylvania. Union Storage Co. v. Speck, 194 Pa. St. 126, 45 Atl. 48.

Vermont. Davis v. Central Vermont R. Co., 66 Vt. 290, 44 Am. St. Rep. 852, 29 Atl. 313.

Wisconsin. Kammermeyer v. Hilz, 107 Wia. 101, 82 N. W. 689.

17Noyes v. Young, 32 Mont. 226, 79 Pac 1063.

18 Bickley v. Commercial Bank, 39 S. Car. 281, 39 Am. St. Rep. 721, 17 S. E. 977.

19 United States. Fire Insurance Association v. Wickham, 141 U. S. 564, 35 L. ed. 860.

Alabama. Williams v. Shows, 197 Ala. 596, 73 So. 99.

Arkansas. National Trust & Credit Co. v. Polk, 123 Ark. 24, 183 S. W. 195.

California. Jersey Island Dredging Co. v. Whitney, 149 Cal. 269, 86 Ac. 509, 691; Carpenter v. Markham, 172 Cal. 112, 155 Ac. 644.

Iowa. Mounce v. Kurtz, 101 la. 192, 70 N. W. 119; Meginnes v. McChesney, 179 la. 563, L. R. A. 1917E, 1060, 160 N. W. 50.

Massachusetts. Lait v. Sears, 226 Mass. 119, 115 N. E. 247.

New York. Komp v. Raymond, 175 N. Y. 102, 67 N. E. 113.

Vermont. Jones v. Campbell, - Vt. - , L. R. A. 1918A. 1056, 102 Atl. 102.

Washington. Allen v. Tacoma Mill Co., 18 Wash. 216, 51 Ac. 372.

Wisconsin. Twohy Mercantile Co. v. McDonald's Estate, 108 Wis. 21, 83 N. W. 1107.

20 Williams v. Shows, 197 Ala. 596, 73 So. 99; Meginnes v. McChesney, 179 la. 563, L. R. A. 1917E, 1060, 160 N. W. 50; Jones v. Campbell, - Vt. - , L. R. A. 1918A, 1056, 102 Atl. 102.

21 Lait v. Sears, 226 Mass. 119, 115 N. E. 247.

The contractual operation and effect of agreements and promises contained in the instrument is not altered by the fact that it contains other provisions which amount to recitals of fact.22 Accordingly the provision for releasing the debtor from further liability is to be regarded as contractual in character.23

A payment by A of a certain sum which he declares to be the balance due under his interpretation of the account between the parties, is said not to be an offer of compromise; and B's act in accepting such amount is therefore not an acceptance of an offer of compromise.24