A payment to revive a debt need not be made in money; since the giving of any property, note or security as a partial payment, warrants the same inference as if payment had been made in cash.31 And so does an agreement by the debtor to apply the amount of a cross-claim held by him to the barred indebtedness.32

28But see Marreco v. Richardson, [1906] 2 K. B. 684. There a check in part payment was given a debtor on May 10, but the creditor agreed not to present it until June 20. He presented it on the latter day and it was paid. The part payment as a revival of the debtor's obligation was held to have been made only on the earlier day.

29Ferris v. Curtis, 53 Col. 340, 127 Pac. 236; Regan c. Williams, 185 Mo. 620, 84 S. W. 959, 105 Am. St. Rep. 600. Cf. First Nat. Bank v. King, 164 N. C. 303, 80 8. E. 251, 49 L. R. A. (N. S.) 392, where a debtor, to secure his note left collateral with a bank and constituted the cashier his agent on default, to apply the proceeds to the note. A sale and application of proceeds by the cashier, seven yean from the date of the note, was held to amount to a voluntary payment sufficient to interrupt the Statute of Limitations. The dissenting opinion in the case seems the more convincing.

30 See infra, Sec. 189.

31 Hart v. Nash, 2 C. M. & R. 237; Sibley v. Lutnbert, 30 Me. 253; Pracht v. McNee, 40 Kan. 1, 18 Pac. 925; Wolford v. Cook, 71 Minn. 77, 73 N. W. 706, 70 Am. St. Rep. 315; Smith v. Ryan, 66 N. Y. 352, 23 Am. Rep. 60; McCarthy Bros. Co. v. Hans-kutt, 29 S. Dak. 535, 137 N. W. 286; Cuthberteon v. Hill, 65 Vt. 573,27 Atl. 71; Rowell v. Lewis' Est., 72 Vt. 163, 47 Atl. 783.

32 Worthington v. Grimsditch, 7 Q. B. 479; McKeon v. Byington, 70 Conn. 429, 39 Atl. 853; Vinson v. Palmer, 45 Fla. 630, 34 So. 276; State Nat. Bank v. Harris, 96 N. C. 118, 1 S. E. 459;