In England it was formerly held that a new promise was effectual to bind a discharged bankrupt.78 But in the English Bankruptcy Acts of 1849 and 1861, it was provided that such promises should not be binding, In the two most recent Acts-those of 1869 and 1883-there is no such provision. Nevertheless the English courts still hold such a promise unenforceable,79 unless given for new consideration 80 after the discharge.81 In the United States such promises have always been held binding.82 Doubtless, it would be within promised to pay the face of the instrument without costs, and was held bound to keep the promise.

76 See infra, Sec. 180.

77 Whitaker v. Morrison, 1 Fla. 25, 44 Am. Dec. 627; Sigourney v. Wether ell,6Metc.553;Sherer v. Easton Bank, 33 Pa. 134; Knapp v. Runals, 37 Wis. 135. But see Brooks v. Laws, 202 111. App. 448.

78 Twias v. Massey, 1 Atk. 67; True-man v. Fenton, Cowp. 644; Bruc v. Braham, 1 Bing. 281; Roberts v. Morgan, 2 Esp. 736; Birch v. Sharland, 1 T. R. 715; Earle v. Oliver, 2 Exch. 71.

79 Jones v. Phelps, 20 W. R. 92; Heather v. Webb, 2 C. P. D. 1; Ex parte Barrow, 18 Ch. D. 464.

80 Jakeman v. Cook, 4 Ex. D. 26; Be Aylmer, 1 Manson, 391.

81 Ex parte Barrow, 18 Ch. D. 464.

82Allen v. Ferguson, 18 Wall. 1, 21 L. Ed. 854; Zavelo v. Reeves, 227 U. S. 625, 57 L. Ed. 676, 33 8. Ct. 366, Ann. Cas. 1914 D. 664; Mutual Reserve Assoc, v. Beatty, 93 Fed. 747, 36 C. C. A. 573; Re Sweetser, 128 Fed. 166; Dealing v. Moffitt, 6 Ala. 776; Evans v. Carey, 29 Ala. 99; Nelson v. Stewart, 64 Ala. 115, 25 Am. Rep. 660; Wolffe v. Eberlein, 74 Ala. 99, 49 Am. Rep. 809; Kraus v. Torry, 146 Ala. 548, 40 So. 956; Torry p. Krauss, 149 Ala. 200, 43 So. 184; Anthony v. Stur-divant, 174 Ala. 621, 56 So. 571; Lana-gin v. Nowland, 44 Ark. 84; Pindall v. Loague, 56 Ark. 525, 20 S. W. 350; Lambert v. Schawls, 118 Cal. 33, 50 Pac. 13; Ross v, Jordan, 62 Ga. 298; Moore v. Trounstine, 126 Ga. 116, 54 S. E. 810; Bank of Elberton v. Vickery, 20 Ga. App. 96, 92 S. E. 547; St. John the power of Congress to enact provisions in the Federal Bankruptcy Act governing the matter, but as there is no such provision each State is at liberty to apply its own rule.83 In a few States, by Statute, it is required that such a new promise be in writing in order to be effectual.84 But such statutes are not usual. The new promise must be clear and free from ambiguity. Expressions of expectation or of good intentions are insufficient;85 and the implication in fact of a v. Stephenson, 90 111. 82; Stern v. Smith, 225 111. 430, 80 N. E. 307; 116 Am. St, Rep. 161; Cheney v. Barge, 26 111. App. 182; Post v. Losey, 111 Ind. 74, 88, 12 N. E. 121, 60 Am. Rep. 677; Carey v. Hess, 112 Ind. 398, 14 N. E. 235; Willis v. Cushman, 115 Ind. 100, 17 N. E. 168; Knapp v. Hoyt, 57 Ia. 591, 10 N. W. 925; Brooks v. Paine, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1125, 77 S. W. 190; An-drieu's Succession, 44 Ia. Ann. 103, 10 So. 388; Corliss v. Shepherd, 28 Me. 550; Otis v. Gaslin, 31 Me. 567; Hussey v. Danforth, 77 Me. 17, 22; Yates v, Hollingsworth, 5 H. & J. 216; Webster v. LeCompte, 74 Md. 249, 22 Atl. 232; Maxim v. Morse, 8 Mass. 127; Champion v. Buckingham, 165 Mass. 76, 42 N. E. 498; Craig v. Seitz, 63 Mich. 727, 30 N. W. 347; Higgins v. Dale, 28 Minn. 126, 9 N. W. 583; Pearsall v. Tabour, 98 Minn. 248, 108 N. W. 808; McWillie v. Kirkpatrick, 28 Miss. 802, 64 Am. Dec. 125; Wisliz-enus v. O'Fallon, 91 Mo. 184, 3 S. W. 837; Farmers' & Merchants' Bank p. Richards, 119 Mo. App. 18, 95 S. W. 290; Underwood v. Eastman, 18 N. H. 582; Wiggin v. Hodgdon, 63 N. H, 39; Holt v. Akarman, 84 N. 3. L. 371, 86 Atl. 408; Shippey v. Henderson, 14 Johns. 178,7 Am. Dec. 458; Herrington v. Davitt, 220 N. Y. 162,115 N. E. 476, 1 A. L. R. 1700; Graham v. O'Hern, 24 Hun, 221; Tompkins v. Hazen, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 359, 51 N. Y. S. 1003 (conf.. s. c. 165 N. Y. 18, 58 N. E. 762); Fraley p. Kelly, 88 N. C. 227, 43 Am. Rep. 743; Earnest v. Parke, 4 Rawle, new promise from past payment86 or from a mere acknowledgment of liability 87 is not sufficiently clear to revive the obligation. A conditional promise is effectual according to its terms, but the condition must happen,88 or be waived.89 Therefore, a promise to pay a discharged debt in instalments does not afford a basis for a suit for the whole debt at once.90

452,27 Am. Dec. 280; Murphy v. Crawford, 114 Pa. 496, 7 Atl. 142; Harris v. Peck, 1R. 1.262; Lanier v. Tolleson, 20 S. Car. 57; Moseley v. Coldwell, 3 Baxt. 208; Blackwell v. Farmers' & Merchants' Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 76 S. W. 454; Farmers' ft M. Bank v. Flint, 17 Vt. 508, 44 Am. Dec. 351; In Taylor v. Stiles, 113 Tenn. 288, 81 S. W. 1258, it was held that a new promise did not revive a debt discharged by composition proceedings in bankruptcy; the court following the analogy of debts voluntarily discharged. See infra, Sec. 159. But this decision seems open to criticism. See 18 Harv. L. Rev. 59. Contrary decisions holding such a new promise binding are Zavelo v. Reeves, 227 V. S. 625, 57 L. Ed. 676, 33 S. Ct. 365, Ann. Cas. 1914 D. 664; Be Merriman's Eat., 44 Conn. 687; Higgins v. Dale, 28 Minn. 126, 9 N. W. 583; Henington v. Davitt, 220 N. Y. 162,115 N. E. 476,1 A. L. R. 1700.

83 Holt v. Akarman, 84 N. J. L. 371, 86 Atl. 408, and see cases in the preceding note.

84See Maine Rev. L. (1903), C 113, Sec. 1; Nathan v. Lelond, 193 Mass. 576, 79 N. E. 793; Holt v. Akarman, 84 N. J. L. 371, 86 Atl. 408; Tompkins v. Haxen, 165 N. Y. 18, 68 N. E. 762; Bair v. Hilbert, 84 N. Y. App. Div. 621, 82 N. Y. S. 1010. The American statutes follow the similar English statute of 6 Geo. IV, c. 16.

85 Mucklow v. St. George, 4 Taunt. * 613; Lynbuy v. Weightman, 5 Esp.

It has been held in a few cases that some express acceptance of the condition on the part of the creditor is necessary.91

A new promise after the beginning of bankruptcy proceedings is valid though made before the discharge is granted; 92 and so it has been held in Pennsylvania, even though made before bankruptcy proceedings have been begun;93 but the latter cases probably would not be followed elsewhere.94

* 198; Brook p. Wood, 13 Price, 667; Allen v. Ferguson, 18 Wall. 1,21 L. Ed. 854; Bearing v. Moffitt, 6 Ala, 776; Torry v. Krauss, 149 Ala. 200, 43 So. 184; Stem v. Smith, 225 111. 430, 80 N. E. 307; Dressier v. Van Vlissingen, 195 111. App. 63; Shockey p. Mills, 71 Ind. 288; Bartlett p. Peck, 5 La. Ann. 669; United Society v. Winkley, 7 Gray, 460; Bigelow v. Norris, 139 Mass. 12, 29 N. E. 61, Smith p. Stanchfield, 84 Minn. 343, 87 N. W. 917; Pearsall v. Tabour, 98 Minn. 248,108 N. W. 808; Stewart v. Reckless, 4 Zab. 427; Holt v. Akannan, 84 N. J. L. 371, 86 Atl. 408; Roosevelt v. Mark, 6 Johns. Ch. 266; Herrington p. Davitt, 220 N. Y. 162, 115 N. E. 476; Yoxtheimer v. Keyser, 11 Pa. 364, 51 Am. Dec. 555; Brown v. Collier, 8 Humph. 510; Moseley v. Coldwell, 3 Baxt. 208. Cf. Bolton v. King, 105 Pa. 78; Taylor v. Nixon, 4 Sneed, 352.

86Tolle v. Smith, 98 Ky. 464, 33 S. W. 410; Merriam p. Bayley, 1 Cush. 77, 48 Am. Dec. 591; Institute for Savings v. Littlefield, 6 Cush. 210; Jacobs v. Carpenter, 161 Mass. 16, 36 N. E. 676; Stark v. Stinson, 23 N. H. 259; Lawrence v. Harrington, 122 N. Y. 408, 25 N. E. 406; Wheeler p. Simmons, 60 Hun, 404.

87 Crandall v. Moaton, 24 N. Y. App. D.547,50N.Y.S.145.

88 Besford p. Saunders, 2 H. Bl. 116; Campbell p. Sewell, 1 Chitty, 609; Earle v. Oliver, 2 Exch. 71; Dealing p.

Moffitt, 6 Ala. 776; Branch Bank v Boykin, 9 Ala. 320; Kraus v. Torry, 146 Ala. 548, 40 So. 956; Mason v. Hug-hart, 9 B. Mon. 480; Carson v. Osborn, 10 B. Mon. 155; Tolle v. Smith. 98 Ky. 464, 33 S. W. 410; Braghears v. Combs, 174 Ky. 344, 192 S. W. 482; Yatee v. Hollingsworth, 5 Har. & J. 216; Baltimore etc. R. Co. v. Clark, 19 Md. 509; Randidge p. Lyman, 124 Mass. 361; Elwell v. Cumner, 136 Mass. 102; Wiggin v. Hodgdon, 63 N. H. 39; Scouton v. Eislord, 7 Johns. 36; Her-rington p. Davitt, 220 N. Y. 162, 115 N. E. 476; Kingaton v. Wharton, 2 S. ft R. 208; 7 Am. Dec. 638; Taylor v. Nixon, 4 Sneed, 352; Sherman v. Ho-bart, 26 Vt. 60.

89 Tompkins v. Hazen, 30 N. Y. App. Div. 359, 51 N. Y. S. 1003.

90 International Harvester Co. p. Lyman, 90 Minn. 275, 96 N. W. 87.

91 Craig v. Brown, 3 Wash. C. C. 503; Samuel v. Cravens, 10 Ark. 380; Bra-shears v. Combs, 174 Ky. 344, 192 S. W. 482; Smith p. Stanchfield, 84 Minn. 343,87 N. W. 917; International Harvester Co. v. Lyman, 90 Minn. 275, 96 N. W. 87. See discussion as to the necessity of acceptance where a conditional promise to pay a debt barred by the Statute of limitations is made by the debtor, infra, Sec. 180.

92 Roberts v. Morgan, 2 Esp. 736; Brix v. Braham, 1 Bing. 281; Earle v. Oliver, 2 Exch. 71; Kirkpatrick v. Tat-teraall, 13 M. & W. 766; Zavelo v.