In some jurisdictions notice of acceptance of a guaranty is required.63 In such jurisdictions, if notice is not given, the guarantor, nevertheless, becomes liable, if he promises, in spite of failure to give him notice, to fulfil his guaranty.64 So a surety who has been discharged by an agreement made between the principal debtor and the creditor to give time to the principal debtor, will revive his own liability if he makes a new promise to perform his obligation with knowledge of the creditor's agreement with the principal debtor.65 Similarly the promise of a party secondarily liable on a bill or note to pay the same in spite of having been discharged by lack of diligence on the part of the holder in making presentment to a party primarily liable, or in giving notice of his default, operates in the same way as if presentment and notice had been originally waived.66 And it has been held that such a new promise made to the holder of the bill or note enures to the benefit of a subsequent holder;67 and likewise enures to the benefit of a prior holder who has taken up the instrument.68 A promise made to one who is not a holder or party to the instrument is ineffectual;69 and so is a promise made in ignorance of the failure to exercise due diligence.70 But it is not invalidated by ignorance of the legal effect of the holder's failure to exercise due diligence.71 The new promise must be unequivocal in its terms.72 A mere acknowledgment of liability has been held insufficient.73 A conditional promise by the discharged drawer or indorser will bind him it is said, if the condition is accepted by the holder;74 and certainly if the promise is accepted by the holder, a promise to pay part of the indebtedness is also binding.75 As to the propriety of

Weeks, 47 La. Ann. 1012, 17 So. 488; Wilson v. Burr, 26 Wend. * 388; Growing v. Davidson, 26 N. Y. 604; Hemphill v. MeClimans, 24 Pa. 367; Leonard v. Duffin, 94 Pa. 218; Brooks p. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 125 Pa. 394, 17 Atl. 418; Holden p. Banes, 140 Pa. 63, 21 Atl. 239; Rathfon v. Locker, 215 Pa. 571, 64 Atl. 790.

60 Watson v. Dunlap, 2 Cranoh C. C. 14; Ezell v. King, 93 Ala. 470, 9 So. 634; Thompson v. Hudgins, 116 Ala. 93,22 So. 632; Horton v. Hill, 138 Ala. 625, 36 So. 465; Waters p. Bean, 16 Ga. 358; Howard v. Simpkins, 70 Ga. 322; Thompson v. Minnich, 227 111. 430, 81 N. E. 336; Matter v. Martin, 43 Ind. 314; Putnam v. Tennyson, 50 Ind. 466; Long v. Brown, 66 Ind. 160; Austin v. Davis, 128 Ind. 472, 26 N. E. 890, 12 L. R. A. 120; Holloway's Assignee p. Rudy, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1406, 60 S. W. Rep. 650, 53 L. R. A. 353; Gilbert v. Brown, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 1248, 97 S. W. 40; Lyell p. Wslbach, 113 Md. 574, 77 Atl. 1111, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 741; Porterfidd v. Butler, 47 Miss. 165, 12 Am. Rep. 329; Musick v. Dodson, 76 Mo. 624, 43 Am. Rep. 780; Bragg v. Israel, 86 Mo. App. 338; Kent v. Rand.

64 N. H. 46, 6 Atl. 760; Condon v. Barr, 49 N. J. L. 63, 6 Atl. 614; Long p. Rankin, 108 N. C. 333,12 S. E. 987; Wilcox v. Arnold, 116 N. C. 70S, 21 S. E. 434; Hayward v. Barker, 62 Vt. 429, 36 Am. Rep. 762; Valentine p. Bell, 66 Vt. 280, 29 Atl. 251; Dixie v. Worthy, 11 U. C. Q. B. 328. See also Parker v. Cowan, 1 Heisk. 518. Still more clearly a promise by a widow to pay a debt of her deceased husband is unenforceable. Royer v. Kelly, 174 Cal. 70, 161 Pac. 1148.

61 Does v. Peterson, 82 Ala. 253, 2 Bo. 644; Viser v. Bertrand, 14 Ark. 267; Craft p. Holland, 37 Conn. 481; de-land v. Low, 32 Ga. 458; Condon p. Barr, 49 N. J. L. 53, 6 Atl. 614; Felton v. Read, 7 Jones L. 269; Long v. Rankin, 108 N. C. 333, 12 S. E. 987; Wilcox v. Arnold, 116 N. C. 708, 21 8. E. 434; Hubbard v. Bugbee, 55 Vt. 506, 45 Am. Rep. 637, 58 Vt. 172, 2 Atl. 694; Sherwin v. Sanders, 69 Vt. 499, 9 Atl. 239, 69 Am. Rep. 750.

62Supra, Sec.143.

63See supra, Sec.69.

64 Gamage v. Hutchins, 23 Me. 565; Signoumey v. Wetherell 6 Met. 563; Ashford v. Robinson, 8 Ind. L. 114.

65Stevens v. Lynch, 12 East. 38; Mayhew v. Crickett, 2 Swanston, 185, 192 (per Eldon); Smith v. Winter, 4 M. & W. 454; Ellis p. Bibb, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 63,70; First Natl. Bank v. Whitman, 66 111. 331; Williams v. Boyd, 75 Ind. 286; Matchett v. Winona Assembly, 185 Ind. 128,113 N. E. 1; Crutcher v. Trabu, 6 Dana, 80; Young v. New Farmers' Bank's Trustee, 102 Ky. 257, 43 S. W. 473; Bishop v. Eaton, 161 Mass. 496, 37 N. E. 665, 42 Am. St. Rep. 437; Porter v. Hodenpuyl, 9 Mich. 11; Hooper v. Pike, 70 Minn. 84, 72 N. W. 829, 68 Am. Rep. St. 512; Merrimack Bank v. Brown, 12 N. H. 320; Rochester Bank v. Chick, 64 N. H. 410, 13 Atl. 872; Bramble v Ward, 40 Oh. St. 267; Dey v. Martin, 78 Va. 1; Parsons v. Harrold, 46 W. Va. 122, 32 S. E. 1002; Fay d. Tower, 58 Wis. 286, 16 N. W. 558. But see contra, Walters v. Swallow, 6 Whart. 446. And in Cruse v. Gau (Tex. Civ. App.), 193 S. W. 405, the court held that liability could not be revived unless the creditor acted on the surety's promise and that, therefore, a letter of the surety mailed but never received could have no effect.

66 Uniform Neg. Inst. Law, See. 109, infra, Sec. 1186; Rogers v. Stephens, 2 T. R. 713; Hopes v. Alder, 6 East, 16 n.; Lundie v. Robertson, 7 East, 231; Ra-bey v. Gilbert, 6 H. & N. 536; Cordery v. Colvin, 14 C. B. (N. S.) 374; Killby v. Rochusaen, 18 C. B. (N. S.) 357; Woods p. Dean, 3 B. & S. 101; Bartholomew v. Hill, 5 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 756; Reynolds v. Douglass, 12 Pet. 497,505, 9 L. Ed. 1171; Sigereon v. Mathews, 20 How. 496, 15 L. Ed. 989; Yeager v. Farwell, 13 Wall. 6, 20 L. Ed. 476; Hasard v. White, 26 Ark. 155; Leonard v. Hastings, 9 Cal. 236; Breed v. Hill-house, 7 Conn. 523; Hayes v. Werner, 45 Conn. 246; Tobey v. Berly, 26 111. 426; Smith v. Curlee, 59 111. 221; First Nat'l Bank v. Day, 62 Iowa, 680, 3 N. W. 728; Higgina v. Morrison's Ex'r, 4 Dana, 100 (but see Lawrence v. Ralston, 3 Bibb, 102); Hart v. Long, 1 Rob. (La.) 83; Turabuu v. Maddux, 68 Md. 579; Schwartz v. Wilmer, 90 Md. 136, 44 Atl. 1059; Thomas v. Mayo, 56 Me. 40 (in Maine by statute the promise must be in writing. Parshley v. Heath, 69 Me. 90, 31 Am. Rep. 246); Harrison v. Bailey, 99 Mass. 620, 97 Am. Dec. 63; Rindge v. Kimball, 124 Mass. 209; Hobbs v. Straine, 149 Mass. 212, 21 N. E. 365; Parsons v. Dickinson, 23 Mich. 56; State Bank v. McCabe, 135 Mich. 479, 98 N. W. 20; Robbins v. Pinckard, 13 Miss. 51; Salisbury v. Renick, 44 Mo. 554; Long v. Dismer, 71 Mo. 452; Faulkner v. Faulkner, 73 Mo. 327, 337; Rogers v. Hackett, 21 N. H. 100; Richardson v. Kulp, 81 N. J. L. 123, 78 Atl. 1062;