6 Esp. 66; Stimis v. Stimis, 60 N. J. Eq. 313, 47 Atl. 20.

91 Russell v. LaRoque, 11 Ala. 352; Merrills v. Swift, 18 Conn. 257, 46 Am. Dec. 315; Maddoz v. Walker's Exr., 26 Ky. L. Rep. 124, 74 S. W. 741; Baich v. Onion, 4 Cush. 659; First Nat. Bank v. Bell, 141 La. 53, 74 So. 628; Smith v. Ryan, 66 N. Y. 352, 23 Am. Rep. 60; Miller v. McGee, 2 N. Y. Supp. 156; Souder's Estate, 169 Pa. 239, 32 Atl. 417; Stanford v. Andrews, 12 Heisk. 664; Grayson v. Taylor, 14 Tex. 672. But see Shepherd v. Thompson, 122 U. S. 231, 30 L. Ed. 1156, 7 S Ct. 1229. The taking by a surety of security from the principal debtor is not an acknowledgment of liability by the surety to the creditor. Holt v. Gage, 60 N. H. 536. In Louisiana it seems to be the law that so long as the creditor retains possession of security belonging to the debtor there is a continuing acknowledgment of the debt. See Taylor v. Vossberg Mineral Springs Co., 123 La, 364, 54 So. 907.