In the absence of such a statutory provision, ratification may either be by an express new promise, made orally or in writing, or it may be implied from acts or declarations clearly showing an intention to recognize the contract, and to be bound by it. The new promise, whether in writing or oral, or evidenced by conduct, must be clear and unequivocal, and must show an intention to be bound.39

A mere acknowledgment of the contract, without a promise to be bound, express or implied, is not sufficient.*0 Where there is a new promise, it must be made to the other party or his agent;41 and if it is not absolute, but conditional - as, for instance, where it is a promise to pay or otherwise perform when able - the condition must be fulfilled before any liability attaches.42

It has frequently been held that to render an act or promise binding as a ratification it must be performed or made with knowledge that there was in law no liability on the original contract.43 There are many cases, however, which hold that knowledge of the law is not necessary, or, rather, must be presumed.**

There need be no fresh consideration for the new promise, for, as we have seen, this is one of the cases in which a past consideration is sufficient.45

39 Whitney v. Dutch, 14 Mass., at page 460. 7 Am. Dee. 229; Oarrell v. Potter, 23 Mich. 379. And see notes 46-51, infra. See "Infants," Dec. Dip. (Key-No.) § 57; Cent. Dig. §§ 136-148.

40 THOMPSON v. LAY, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 48, 16 Am. Dec 325, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 139; Ford v. Phillips, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 202; Kendrick v. Neisz. 17 Colo. 506, 30 Pac. 245; Hale v. Gerrish, 8 N. H. 374. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 57; Cent. Dig. §§ 136-148.

41Goodsell v. Myers, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 479; Bigelow v. Grannis, 2 Hill (N. Y.) 120. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 57; Cent. Dig. §§ 136-11,8.

42 Everson v. Carpenter, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 419; Kendrick v. Neisz, 17 Colo. 506, 30 Pac. 245; THOMPSON v. LAY, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 48, 16 Am. Dec. 325, Throckmorton Cas. Contracts, 139; Proctor v. Sears, 4 Allen (Mass.) 95. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 57; Cent. Dig. §§ 136-148.

43 Harner v. Killing, 5 Esp. 103; Curtin v. Patton, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 305; Thing v. Libbey, 16 Me. 55; Trader v. Lowe, 45 Md. 1; Smith v. Mayo, 9 Mass. 62, 6 Am. Dec. 28; Ford v. Phillips, 1 Pick. (Mass.) 202; Reed v. Boshears, 4 Sneed (Tenn.) 118; Norris v. Vance, 3 Rich. Law (S. C.) 164; Bur-dett v. Williams (D. C.) 30 Fed. 697; Bresee v. Stanly, 119 N. C. 278, 25 S. E. 870. No ratification, if adult is ignorant that he was an infant when he made the contract. Ridgeway v. Herbert, 150 Mo. 606, 51 S. W. 1040, 73 Am. St. Rep. 464. See "Infants," Dee. Dig. (Key-No.) § 57; Cent. Dig. §§ 136-148.

44Morse v. Wheeler, 4 Allen (Mass.) 570; Taft v. Sergeant, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 321; Anderson v. Soward, 40 Ohio St. 325, 48 Am. Rep. 687; American Mortgage Co. of Scotland v. Wright, 101 Ala. 658, 14 South. 399; Clark v. Van Court, 100 Ind. 113, 50 Am. Rep. 774; Ring v. Jamison, 66 Mo. 424; Bestor v. Hickey, 71 Conn. 181, 41 Atl. 555. See "Infants" Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 57;' Cent. Dig. §§ 136-148.