In the following cases the acknowledgments were held not sufficiently positive to justify the inference of a new implied promise:-A letter from the debtor in reply to a claim for $77.91 saying in substance, that the debtor could not pay at once and did not know when he could, adding "furthermore the bill is $55.70 in all, deducting $20 on my last payment;"82 a letter from the debtor saying "I think a little later as soon as things start up I may be able to do something for you;" 83 a letter from the debtor offering to endeavor to raise a certain sum if the creditor would accept it in full satisfaction of certain notes, adding "I am not backing up or repudiating anything;" 84 delivery by the maker of a note at the request of the payee's executor of a true copy of the note to the executor;85 letter by the maker of a note saying that if he could keep the land which was mortgaged to secure the note a year longer, he thought he could make a half payment in the year and if he could not, he would be glad to give up the land, further asking that he be given a show; 86a promise to try to pay a debt if sickness did not continue too long, and that the debtor wanted to pay the debt in the current season;87 an offer to arbitrate, since it does not involve an admission of liability;87a a promise to leave money by will unless it is

80Elliott v. Mills, 10 Ind. 36S;

81 Re McHenry, 71 L. T. Rep. 146; Vender it. Guillou, 97 Pa. 63; Robinson v. Monroe (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 53.

82 Wald v. Arnold, 168 Mass. 134, 46v N.E.419. See also France v. Ruby, 63 Neb. 214, 140 N. W. 175.

83392 Gill v. Gibson, 225 Mass. 226, 114 N. E. 198.

84 Throop v. Russell, 145 Mich. 482, 108 N. W. 1013,116 Am. St. Rep. 314.

85 Goodrich v. Case, 68 Oh. St. 187,v 67 N. E. 295.

86 Wood v. Merrietta, 66 Kams. 748, 71Pac.579. In Kansas an acknowledgment must apparently be more direct and explicit than in most States, though, as has been seen (supra, $ 167), no new promise needs to be implied. See McMillan v. Leeds, 58 Kans. 815, 49 Pac. 159; Cooper v. Haythorn, 65 Kans. 860, 70 Pac. 581; Durban v. Knowles, 66 Kans. 397, 71 Pac. 829. Cf. decisions stated supra, Sec. 171.

87 Koop v. Cook, 67 Or. 93, 135 Pac. 317.

87a Curtis p. Sacramento, 70 Cal. 412, clear that the money is to be left, not as a gift, but as payment of an obligation;88 an acknowledgment of the debt as having once existed. "There must be a distinct and unequivocal acknowledgment of the debt as still subsisting as a personal obligation of the debtor." 89 Therefore, an acknowledgment that a debt subsisted formerly, accompanied with a statement that it has been paid or discharged will not revive a debt, though in fact it has not been paid or discharged.90