The early law never went so far as to hold that a subsequent promise to perform an obligation under seal could be enforced in the action of assumpsit. Even if the sealed instrument bound the maker to pay a liquidated sum of money, the remedy was solely on the bond. Accordingly if the early law is logically followed effect will be denied to a new promise to pay a bond debt. This seems to have been the law of England,88 until express statutory provision was made for reviving barred specialties by a new promise in writing;89 and in the United States there is authority to the same effect.90 Some decisions, however, allow action on such a promise,91 or upon the barred bond, treating the new promise as a rebuttal of a defence based on the Statute;92 and similarly an admission,93 or part payment,94 has been held effective. If the effect of a seal at common law is done away with by statute, the reason for making a distinction between a new promise to pay a bond debt and a simple contract debt ceases. The same reasoning that is applicable to new promises to pay bond debts is also applicable to new promises to pay judgment debts. Such new promises are generally ineffectual;95 but the contrary has also been held; 96 and in some jurisdictions it is expressly provided by Statute that the new promise shall be effectual.97

88 Tanner v. Smart, 6 B. & C. 603, 605.

893 and 4 Wm, IV, c. 42, Sec. 5. Moodie v. Bannister, 4 Drewry, 432.

90Crawford v. Children, 1 Ala. 482; Toothaker v. Boulder, 13 Colo. 219, 22 Pac. 468.

91 Young v. Mackall, 3 Md. Ch. 398; Felty v. Young, 18 Md. 163; St Mark's Church v. Miller, 99 Md. 23, 57 Atl. 644. (The new promise was held effective for six years.)

92 Carll v. Hart, 15 Barb. 565; Gailer v. Grinnel, 2 Aiken, 349.

93Tillett v. Commonwealth, 9 B. Mod. 438. But in Maryland nothing less than an express promise, made after the statute has barred the remedy on the bond, is effective. Brooks v. Preston, 106 Md. 693, 706, 68 Atl. 294.

94 Bailpy v. Butler, 138 Ala. 153, 35 So. 111; Armistead v. Brooke, 18 Ark. 521; Craig v. Callaway County Court,

12 Mo. 94; Hartman v. Sharp, 51 Mo. 29; Moore v. Goodwin, 109 N. C. 218,

13 8. E. 772; Moore v. Beaman, 111 N. C. 328, 16 S. E. 177.

95See Tanner v. Smart, 6 B. & C. 603, 605; Harper v. Daniels, 211 Fed. 67, 129 C. C. A. 242; Niblack v. Goodman, 67 Ind. 174; Brooks v. Preston, 106 Md. 693, 68 Atl. 294; Berkson v. Cox, 73 Miss. 339, 18 So. 934, 55 Am. St. Bap. 539; Taylor v. Spivey, 11 Ired. 427; Hughes v. Boone, 114 N. C. 54, 19 S. E. 63.

96 Carshore v. Huyck, 6 Barb. 583; Boukofsky v. Powers, 1 Utah, 333; Ol-cott v. Scales, 3 Vt. 173, 21 Am. Deo. 585.