A right of action arising out of a simple contract is barred by the lapse of a shorter period of time than a right of action arising out of a contract under seal. The respective periods vary somewhat under the statutes of the different states, but generally an action on a simple contract is barred in six years or less, while an action on a sealed instrument is not barred if brought within ten, or, in some jurisdictions, twenty, years.

Pritchard v. Brown, 4 N. H. 397, 17 Am. Dec. 431; Smith v. Arthur, 110 N. C. 400, 15 S. E. 107; Union Mut. Ins. Co. v. Kirchoff, 133 111. 368, 27 N. E. 91. See "Evidence," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 419; Cent. Dig. §§ 1912-1928; "Contracts," Cent. Dig. §§ 229, 408.

46 See post, p. 168.

47 WATKINS v. ROBERTSON, 105 Va. 2G9, 54 S. E. 33, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1194, 115 Am. St. Rep. 880, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 43. See "Evidence," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 419; ' Cent. Dig. §§ 1912-1928.

48 Thomason v. City of Dayton, 40 Ohio St. 63; Allen v. Allen, 45 Pa. at page 473; Brittain v. Daniels, 94 N. C. 781; Reeves v. Brayton, 36 S. C. 384, 15 S. E. 658. See "Estoppel," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 26; Cent. Dig. §§ 61, 62.

49 Price v. Moulton, 10 C. B. 561; Banorgee v. Hovey, 5 Mass. 11, 4 Am. Dec. 17; Leonard v. Hughlett, 41 Md. 380; Curson v. Monteiro, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 308; Rhoads v. Jones, 92 Ind. 328; Robbins v. Ayres, 10 Mo. 538, 47 Am. Dec. 125; McNaughten v. Partridge, 11 Ohio, 223, 28 Am. Dec. 731; Burnes v. Allen, 31 N. C. 370; Berry v. Bacon, 28 Miss. 318; Griswold v. Eastman, 51 Minn. 189, 53 N. W. 542; Shenandoah Valley R. Co. v. Duulop, 86 Va. 346, 10 S. E. 239. But see Shelby v. Railroad Co., 143 111. 385, 32 N. E. 438; Sa-ville v. Chalmers, 76 Iowa, 325, 41 N. W. 30; post, p. 599. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 245; Cent. Dig. §§ 1129, 1180.

50 Hutchins v. Hebbard, 34 N. Y. 24; Day v. Leal, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 404 If the contract under seal is expressly received as collateral security for performance of the simple contract, or if it merely recognizes the debt, and fixes the mode of ascertaining its amount, there is no merger. Marryat v. Marry-at, 28 Beav. 224; Van Vleit v. Jones,20 N. J. Law, 340, 43 Am. Dec. 633; Rees v. Logsdon, 68 Md. 93, 11 Atl. 70S; Brengle v. Bushey, 40 Md. at page 147, 17 Am. Rep. 586; Charles v. Scott, 1 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 294; post, p. 599 See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 245; Cent. Dig. §§ 1129, 1180.