32 Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 361,373-4, 7 L. Ed. 174; Wilson v. Torbert, 3 Stew. 296, 21 Am. Deo. 632; Espy v. Comer, 76 Ala. 601; Burr v. Williams, 30 Ark. 171; Bissell v. Adams, 35 Conn. 299, 302; Conkey v. Barbour, 22 Ind. 196; Merritt v. Pollys, 16 B. Mon. 355, 357; Walsh v. Cane, 4 La. Ann. 533; Ellicott v. Nichols, 7 Gill, 85, 48 Am. Dec. 546; Newman v. McComss, 43 Md. 70; Wilmer p. Gaither, 68 Md. 342,345,12 Atl. 253; Whitney v. Reese, 11 Minn. 138; VanKuerenr. Parmelee, 2 N. Y. 523, 51 Am. Dec 322 (overruling Smith v. Ludlow, 6 Johns. 267); Bloodgood v. Bruen, 8 N. Y. 362; Rep-pert v. Colvin, 48 Pa. 248 (unless the promisor is liquidating partner of a solvent firm); Fisher v. Tucker, 1 Mc-Cord Ch. 169; Steele v. Jennings, 1 Mc-Mull. 297; Belot's Ex. v. Wayne, 7 Yerg. 534; Cocke v. Hoffman, 5 Lea, 105, 111, 40 Am. Rep. 23, and oases infra, n. 36, holding that even before the statute has completely run, one debtor has no power to bind others.

33 Lowther v. Chappell 8 Ala. 353, 42 Am. Dec. 643; Myatte v. Bell, 41 Ala. 222; State Loan etc. Co. v. Cochran, 130 Cal. 245, 255, 62 Pac. 466; Rogers v. Burr, 105 Ga. 432, 447, 31 S. E. 438, 70 Am. St. Rep. 50; Kallen-bach v. Dickinson, 100 111. 427, 39 Am. Rep. 47; Dickerson v. Turner, 12 Ind. 223, 230; Bottles v. Miller, 112 Ind. 584, 14 N. E. 728; Hayman v. Lambden, 97 Md. 33, 54 Atl. 962; Briscoe v. Anketell, 28 Miss. 361, 61 Am. Dec. 553; Mayberry v. Willoughby,

5 Neb. 368, 25 Am. Rep. 491; Omaha Sav. Bank v. Simeral, 61 Neb. 741, 86 N. W. 470; Exeter Bank v. Sullivan,

6 N. H. 124; Bush v. Stowell, 71 Pa. 208, 10 Am. Rep. 694; Muse v. Dunel-eon, 2 Humph. 166, 36 Am. Dec. 309.

34 Tate v. Clements, 16 Fla. 339, 354, 26 Am. Rep. 709; Mann v. Locke, 11 N. H. 246, 250; Tappan v. Kimball, 30 N. H. 136, 141.

35 Hayman v. Lambden, 97 Md. 33, 54 Atl. 962.

36 Myatts v. Bell, 41 Ala. 222; Curry v. White, 51 Cal. 530; Terry v. Piatt, 1 PennewilL 185, 40 Atl. 243; Tate p. Clements, 16 Fla. 339, 26 Am. Rep. 709; Rogers v. Burr, 105 Ga. 432, 447, 31 S. E. 438, 70 Am. St. Rep. 50; Mo-Lin v. Harvey, 8 Ga. App. 360, 69 S. E. 123; Boynton v. Spafford, 162 111. 113, 44 N. E. 379, 53 Am. St. Rep. 274; McDonald v. Weidmer, 103 111. App. 390; Yandes v. Lefavour, 2 Blackf. 371; Bottles p. Miller, 112 Ind. 584, 14 N. E. 728; Moringo v. Ross, 150 Ind. 688, 50 N. E. 867, 41 L. R. A. 612, 65 Am. St. Rep. 387; Theis p. Wood, 238 Mo. 642,142 S. W. 431 (a decision under the law of Kansas); Terrell p. Rowland, 86 Ky. 67, 81, 4 S. W. 825; Gates p.- Fisk, 45 Mich. 522, 8 N. W. 558; Willoughby p. Irish, 35 Minn. 63, 27 N. W. 379, 59 Am. Rep. 297; Wenninger v. Kokeech, 68 Minn. 81, 70 N. W. 867; Monidah Trust p. Kemper, 44 Mont. 1, 118 Pac. 811; Mayberry p. Willoughby, 5 Neb. 368,25 Am. Rep. 491; Tappan v. Kimball, 30 N. H. 136, 141; Shoemaker p. Benedict, 11 N. Y. 176, 52 Am. Dec. 95; Hoover v. Hubbard, 202 N. Y. 289, 95 N. E. 702; Cohen p. Diamond, 132 N. Y. S. 355, 74 Misc. 444; Hance v. Hair, 25 Ohio St. 349; Kerper v. Wood, 48 Ohio St. 613, 29 N. E. 501, 15 L. R. A. 656; Wilson v. Waugh, 101 Pa. 233 (unless the promisor is a liquidating partner); Meggett p. Finney, 4 Strobh. L. 220; Fortune v. Hayes, 5 Rich. Eq. 112; Goudy p. Gillam, 6 Rich. Law, 28; Muse p. Donelson, 2 Humph. 166, 36

Am. Dec. 309; Haddock v. Crocheron, 32 Tex. 276, 5 Am. Rep. 244; Carlton v- Ludlow Woolen Mills, 27 Vt. 496 (statutory); Stubblefield v. McAuliff, 20 Wash. 442, 55 Pac. 637 (cf. Gehres p. Orlowski, 36 Wash. 156,78 Pac. 792); Conrad p. Buck, 21 W. Va. 396, 407; Cowhick v. Shingle, 5 Wyo. 87,37 Pac. 689, 25 L. R. A. 608, 63 Am. St. Rep. 17. See also State Loan Co. p. Cochran, 130 Cal. 245, 255, 62 Pac. 466, and as to the application of State law by the Federal Courts, Cronkhite p. Herrin, 15 Fed. 888; Bergman v. Bly, 66 Fed. 40, 27 U. S. App. 650,13 C. C. A. 319. 37 Burr v. Williams, 20 Ark. 171; Bissell v. Adams, 35 Conn. 299; Beards-ley p. Hall, 36 Conn. 270, 4 Am. Rep, 74; White p. Connecticut Insurance Co., 34 App. D. C. 460; Brewster p. Hardeman, Dudley (Ga.), 138; Cos p. Bailey, 9 Ga. 467, 54 Am. Dec. 358; but see First Nat. Bank p. Ells, 68 Ga. 192; Rogers v. Burr, 105 Ga. 432, 447; McLin p. Harvey, 8 Ga. App. 360, 69 S. E. 123; Van Staden p. Kline, 64 Iowa, 180, 20 N. W. 3; Wilmer p. Gai-ther, 68 Md. 342, 346, 12 Atl. 8, 263; Hayman p. Lambden, 97 Md. 33, 64 Atl. 962; Clinton County v. Smith, 238 Mo. 118, 141 S. W. 1091, 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 272; Merritt v. Day, 38 N. J. L. 82, 20 Am. Rep. 362; Casebolt v. Ackerman, 46 N. J. L. 169; Wood v. Barber, 90 N. C. 76; Turner p. Ross, 1 R. I. 88; Fisher p. Tucker, 1 McCord Ch. 169; Vesle p. Hassan, 3 McCord L. 278; Woonsocket Inst. p. Ballou, 16 R. I. 351, 16 Atl. 144, 1 L. R. A. 555: promise was made, one debtor would have no power to revive it.

In every jurisdiction if one co-debtor has actual authority to pay or promise on behalf of all, all will be bound. Therefore payment by one joint debtor at the request or by direction of another revives the statute as to the latter;38 and not only actual authority from his co-debtors at the time the new promise is made by one will bind all, but a semblance of authority for which the co-debtors are responsible is certainly sufficient if the new promise is made before the debt is barred. Therefore a partial payment made upon a partnership debt after the dissolution of the firm will suspend the operation of the statute as to other partners in favor of the creditor receiving such payment if he has had dealings with the partnership during its continuance and has had no notice of its dissolution.39 If, however, the new promise is not made until after the debt is barred, no forbearance injurious to the creditor can have been caused by relying on the supposed revival of the debt, and no element of estoppel can prevent those who made no promise from showing that no authority in fact existed, as by proving a dissolution of a partnership, even without proper notice to creditors. Ratification of a payment or new promise made by a co-debtor is as effectual as authority originally given to bind the party ratifying; 40 but mere contemporary knowledge of payments being made by a co-debtor is not of itself sufficient.41 Nor will a subsequent verbal

Wheelock v. Doolittle, 18 Vt. 440, 46 Am. Deo. 163; Mix c. Shattuck, 50 Vt. 421, 28 Amer. Rep. 511; In re Smith's Estate, 43 Oregon, 596, 75 Pac. 133. See also Emmons v. Overton, 18 B. Mon. 643.

38 Pitt v. Hunt, 6 Lans. 146; Coleman v. Ward, 85 Wis. 328, 55 N. W. 695.

39Austin v. Bostwick, 9 Conn. 496, 25 Am. Dec 42; Beardsley v. Hall, 36 Conn. 270, 4 Am. Rep. 74; Sage v. Ensign, 2 Allen, 245; Buxton ». Edwards, 134 Mass. 567; Robertson Lumber Co. p. Anderson, 96 Minn. 527,105 N. W. 972; Tappan v. Kimball, 30

N. H. 136; Graves v. Merry, 6 Cow. 701, 16 Am. Dec. 471; Clement v. Clement, 69 Wis. 599, 35 N. W. 17, 2 Am. St. Rep. 760. But see Green v. Baird, 53 111. App. 211; Tate v. Clements, 16 Fla. 339, 26 Am. Rep. 709.

40 Granville v. Young, 85 111. App. 107; McDonald v. Weidmer, 103 111. App. 390; Pfenninger v Kokesch, 68 Minn. 81, 70 N. W. 867; Whipple v. Stevens, 22 N. H. 219; First Nat. Bank of Utica v. Ballou, 49 N. Y. 155.

41 Pfenninger v. Kokesch, 68 Minn. 81, 70 N. W. 867; McMullen v. Ral-ferty, 89 N. Y. 456; Littlefield v. Littiefiekt, 91 N. Y. 203, 43 Am. Rep, promise to pay the balance amount to a ratification of a prior payment by a co-debtor, or bind the promisor in a jurisdiction where new promises must be in writing in order to be binding.42 In a number of jurisdictions the whole matter is settled by statutes, which, in effect, generally provide that an admission or a new promise is ineffectual against any one but the party making it, in the absence of actual authority. Some States, however, follow the first English statute on the subject;43 and do not limit the effect of a part payment but only deprive a co-debtor of the power without actual authority to make a promise which will bind others.44

663; Perkins v. Jennings, 27 Wash. 145, 67 Pac. 590. But see Granville v. Young, 86 111. App. 167; McDonald v. Weidmer, 103 111. App. 390.

42 Pfenninger v. Kokeoch, 68 Minn. 81, 70 N. W. 867.

43 See supra, n. 29.

44 Vernon County v. Stewart, 64 Mo. 408, 410, 27 Am. Rep. 250; Clinton County v. Smith, 238 Mo. 118, 141 S. W. 1091, 37 L. R, A. (N. S.) 172.