It was held in the following cases that the acknowledgment was sufficiently absolute to justify the inference of an implied new promise: "Received of [the creditor] the sum of $700 at various times to date, which is hereby acknowledged;" 65 "We owe it and I will have to pay it;" 66 "I [a surety] will not be longer held good for note in case it be not promptly collected;" 67 "You ask me if I wished to keep the money yet. I am glad you do not need it at present. I can make good use of it yet;" 68 "I regret to say that my neglect in not responding to your statement of account was owing to my not having disposed of but few of your goods; . . . but

N. E. 253; Lane p. Richardson, 79 N. C. 189; Goodwin p. Buzmll, 35 Vt-9.

61 Bissell v. Jaudon, 16 Oh. St. 498; Moon's Adm'x v. Highland Development Co., 104 Va- 551, 52 S. E. 209.

62Trenery v. Swan, 93 Iowa, 619, 61 N. W. 947.

62o Ex parte Topping, 4 DeG. J. & S. 551; Davies v. Edwards, 7 Ezch. 22; Everett p. Robertson, 1 E. & E. 16. In the early part of the nineteenth century when any acknowledgment of indebtedness was held sufficient to revive it though accompanied by words or circumstances indicating an intention not to pay, the law was otherwise. But see Bowie v. Henderson, 6 Wheat. 514, 5 L. Ed. 319; Stuart p. Foster, 18 Abb. Pr. 305.

63 Georgia Insurance Co. v. Ellicott, Taney, 130; Nonotuck Silk Co. v. Pritz-ker, 143 111. App. 644; Richardson v. Thomas, 13 Gray, 381, 74 Am. Dec. 636; Stoddard v. Doane, 7 Gray, 387; Roscoe p. Hale, 7 Gray, 274; Christy v. FlemingtoQ, 10 Pa. St. 129,49 Am. Dec. 590; Hidden v. Cossens, 2 R. 1. 401, 60 Am. Dec. 93; O'Donnell v. Parker, 48 Utah, 578, 160 Pac. 1192. But see Sartor v. Beaty, 25 S. Car. 293, 303.

64 Langston v. Aderhold, 60 Ga. 376.

65 Custy v. Donlan, 159 Mass. 245,34 N. E. 360, 38 Am. St. Rep. 419.

66 Miller v. Kinsel, 20 Col. App. 346, 78 Pac. 1075.

67 Harms p. Freytag, 59 Neb. 359, 80 N. W. 1039.

68Busker v. Korff's Estate, 5 Neb. Unof. 194, 97 N. W. 804, now that I have got the ball rolling, am in hopes to do good business in the future . . .;"69 "I am ashamed the account has stood so long;" 70 a promise to make a due bill though accompanied with a refusal to .sign promissory notes;71 a request for an extension of time;72 a request from a surety that the creditor should get all he could from the principals, coupled with the statement that he himself would be home in two weeks and see the creditor;73 a promise to "settle";74 a promise to renew a note.75 But renewal notes cannot be considered promises to pay the original notes.76 A promise to pay interest indicates sufficiently an intention to pay the principal.77 Where a debtor in making out a statement of his affairs for a creditor inserts therein a barred debt as due to the creditor the statute begins to run afresh.78 Asking for an account of specified indebtedness since it implies an admission of its existence revives the debt;79 and so does assent to the correctness of an account presented by the

69Wright v. Parmenter, 23 N. Y. Misc. 629, 52 N. Y. S. 99. See also as to expression of hope of ability Sid-well v. Mason, 2 H. & N. 306, 310.

70 Coraforth v. Smithard, 5 H. & N. 13.

71 Benedict v. Slocum, 95 N. Y. App. Div. 602, 88 N. Y. S. 1052.

72 Clayton v. Watkina, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 133, 47 S. W. 810.

73 Woodsville Guaranty Sav. Bank c Bicker, 85 Vt. 340, 82 Atl. 2.

74 Mowry v. Saunders, 33 R. I. 45, 80 Atl. 421. See also Hopkins v. Warner, 109 Cal. 133, 41 Pac. 868; Brodyi v. Doherty, 30 Miss. 40,44; Edson v. Fuller, 22 N. H. 183,190; Stilwell v. Coope, 4 Denio, 226, 226; Taylor v. Miller, 113 N. C. 340, 18 S.E. 504. But see contra, Bell v. Crawford, 8 Gratt. 110, 123.

75Peavey u. Brown, 22 Me. 100; Rumscy v. Settle's Est., 120 Mich. 372, 79 N. W. 579; Hart v. Boyt, 64 Miss. 547; Bowman v. Rector (Tenn. Ch.), 59 S. W. 389. In Hartranft's Est. 153 Pa. 530, 26 Atl. 104, 34 Am. St. Sep.

717, the court said: "To make a renewal note or to waive the Statute by an instrument in writing to be executed in future, will not amount to a renewal or a waiver when it appears that the instrument was prepared but its execution postponed or put off, from time to time, and finally left undone." See also Bitter's Estate, 161 Pa. 79, 28 Atl. 1011; Alexander v. Muse, 112Tenn. 233, 79 S. W. 117. The fact, however, that the debtor refused or failed to give the promised renewal note merely shows that he had changed his mind since he made the original promise.

76 Foster v. Dawber, 6 Exch. 839.

77 Taylor v. Steele, 16 M. & W. 665. See also cases infra, Sec. 174, of actual payment of interest.

78 Holmes v, Mackrell, 3 C. B. (N. S.) 789.

79Quincey v. Sharpe, 1 Ex. D. 72; Skeet v . Lindsay, 2 Ex. D. 314; In re Lorillard, 108 Fed. 591,47 C. C. A. 511; Burrows v. Baker, Irish R. 3 Eq. 596. But see Powell v. Fetch, 166 Cal. 329, 136 Pac. 55.

creditor, which includes a barred debt.80But the debtor's failure to object to such an account submitted by his creditor will not do so.81