If a debtor owes several debts to bis creditor and when a payment is made gives no direction, as to its application, the creditor may apply it as partial payment of a debt barred by the Statute of Limitations; but as it is not a partial payment as such but the new promise implied from it which revives a barred debt, such an application by the creditor without the debtor's direction or assent will not remove the bar of the Statute.33 Even though all the debts are barred, the application of the payment by the creditor will not remove the bar; for though in such a case a new promise by the debtor may be inferred, it does not identify the debt to which it relates.34 Nor will an appropriation by the law without the debtor's volition revive a debt.35 But, as has been seen, a payment may be so applied by the creditor as to renew all obligations not already barred.36 It seems possible, moreover, for a partial payment to be made with the intent manifested in acts and circumstances if not in words that it shall be applied generally on account of the debtor's total indebtedness, although that may be represented by several notes or due on more than one account. If the part payment, under the circumstances, involves such an acknowledgment of the whole indebtedness, all will be revived.37 The balance due on an account stated is one debt, and a payment thereon interrupts the running of the statute as to all items.38
Eureka etc. Shingle Co. v. Knack, 95 Wash. 339, 163 Pac. 753.
33 Mills v. Fowkes, 5 Bing. (N. C.) 465; Bum v. Boulton, 2 C. B. 476; Nash v. Hodgson, 8 DeG. M. & G. 474 (cf. Friend v. Young,  2 Ch. 421); Becker v. Oliver, 111 Fed. Rep. 672, 49 C. C. A. 533; Royaton v. May, 71 Ala. 398; Annistead v. Brooke, 18 Ark. 621; McBride v. Noble, 40 Col. 372, 90 Pac. 1037; Blake v. Sawyer, 83 Me. 129, 21 Atl. 834, 12 L. R. A. 712, 23 Am. St. Rep. 762; Pond v. Williams, I Gray, 630; Ramsay v. Warner, 97 Mass. 8; Anderson v. Nyntrom, 103 Minn. 168,114 N. W. 742,12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1141, 123 Am. St. Rep. 320; Wilden v. McAllister, 91 Mo. App. 446, affd. 178 Mo. 732, 77 S. W. 730; Shafer v. Pratt, 79 N. Y. App. Div. 447, 80 N. Y. S. 100. In a few States, however, it is held that the barred debt is revived by such an application of payment by the creditor. Youmans v. Moore, 11 Ga. App. 66, 74 S. E. 710; Leach v. Curtin, 123 N. C. 85, 31 S. E. 269; Hopper v. Hopper, 61 S. C. 124, 39 S. E. 366; Ayer v. Hawkins, 19 Vt. 26; Sanborn v. Cole, 63 Vt. 590, 22 Atl. 716, 14 L. R. A. 208; Rowell v. Lewis' Est., 72 Vt. 163, 47 Atl. 783; compare Austin v. McClure, 60 Vt. 453, 15 Atl. 161.
34 Anderson v. Nyatrom, 103 Minn. 168,114 N. W. 742,13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1141. But see contra, Miller v. Miller, 169 Mo. App. 432,155 S. W. 76. The question involved seems identical with that considered, supra, Sec. 165.
35 Anderson v. Baxter, 4 Oreg. 105.
36 See supra, Sec. 174.