It is generally held that a new promise to be effective must be made to the creditor himself or to his authorized agent.7

5Colledge v. Horn, 3 Bing. 119; Gardner v. M'Mahon, 3 Q. B. 561; Lechmere v. Fletcher, 1 C. & M. 623; Dickenson v. Hatfield, 5 C. & P. 46; Cheslyn v. Dalby, 4 Y. & C. 238; Sid-well v. Mason, 2 H. & N. 306; Conway's Ex. v. Reyburn's Ex., 22 Ark. 290; Cook v. Martin, 29 Conn. 63; Schmidt v. Pfau, 114 111. 494, 2 N. E. 522; O'Hara v. Murphy, 196 111. 699, 63 N. E. 1081; Neish v. Gannon, 198 111. 219, 64 N. E. 1000; Dinsmore v. Dins-more, 21 Me. 433; Shipley v. Shilling, 66 Md. 558,8 Atl. 365; Hardy v. Hardy, 79 Md. 9, 28 Atl. 887; Barnard v. Bartholomew, 22 Pick. 291; Eastman v. Walker, 6 N. H. 367; Long v. Orford, 104 N. C. 408,10 S. E. 525; Broddie v. Johnson, 1 Sneed, 464,468; Thompson v. French, 10 Yerg, 452.

6 Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 351, 366, 7 L. Ed. 174; Pollak v. Billing, 131 Ala. 519, 32 So. 630; Bingo v. Brooks, 26 Ark. 540; Outwaters v. Brownlee, 22 Cat. App. 535, 136 Pac. 300; Mask v. Philler, 32 Miss. 237; Cohen v. Diamond, 74 N. Y. Misc. 444, 132 N. Y. 8. 355; Huff v. Richardson, 19 Pa. 388; Miller v. Baschore, 83 Pa. 356, 24 Am. Rep. 187; Simrell v. Miller, 169 Pa. 326, 32 Atl. 548; Ward v. Jack, 172 Pa. 416, 33 Atl. 577; Rosen-crance v. Johnson, 191 Pa. 520, 43 Atl. 360. See also Sutton v. Burruss, 9 Leigh, 381, 33 Am. Dec. 246.

In Stiles v. Laurel Fork Oil Co., 47 W. Va. 838, the headnote states a new promise must be "of a precise sum." In fact the opinion of the court gives no warrant for this part of the headnote. Nevertheless it is quoted as an accurate statement of the law in Holley's Exr. v. Curry, 58 W. Va. 70, 51 S. E. 135, 112 Am. St. Rep. 944.

7 In the following cases promises or acknowledgments made to an agent of the creditor were held sufficient: Evans v. Davies, 4 A. & E. 840; O'Hara v. Murphy, 196 111. 599, 63 N. E. 1081; Wetz v. Greffe, 71 111. App. 313; Miller v. McDowell, 69 Kans. 453, 77 Pac. 101; Yarbrough v. Gilland, 77 Miss. 139,24 So. 170; Martin v. Brahnam, 86 Mo. 643; Kirby v. Mills, 78 N. C. 124, 24 Am. Rep. 460; Emerson v. Miller, 27 Pa. 278; Criswell v. Criawell, 56 Pa. 130; Warnock v. Itawis, 38 Wash. 144, 80 Pac. 297. Proof of the agent's authority must be made in order to make a new promise, to one who is an undelivered writing still more clearly than an acknowledgment to a stranger is insufficient.11 A promise to a legal representative of the creditor as an executor or administrator is, however, sufficient,12 or to one not yet administrator, but subsequently appointed.13 And so is a promise to one beneficially interested in the claim as inheritor,14 or as assignee of a note,15 or of a non-negotiable chose in action.16 It has even been held that the holder of a negotiable note may recover on a promise made to another who was at the time holder of the note.17 But a new promise or partial payment made to a payee or other holder, after he has transferred all interest in the instrument, unless made to him as agent for the subsequent holder cannot avail the latter.18 If the transfer by him is merely as collateral security, however, a new promise to the original payee has been upheld.19

An admission or promise to a stranger is ineffectual.8 But if a promise is made to a third person with the intention that it shall be communicated to the creditor, and the communication takes place, the new promise is binding.9 In a few jurisdictions in view of the exceptional rule there prevailing that an admission of indebtedness though not constituting a new promise is sufficient it is held that an admission to a stranger enables the creditor to recover, since the continued existence of the debt is thereby proved.10 An admission contained in claimed to be the creditor's agent, admissible in evidence. Bahny v. Levy, 236 Pa.348,84 Atl. 835. In McKinney v. Snyder, 78 Pa. 497, the court stated as a requisite that the debtor "must be aware of the agency at the time of the promise." No such severe requirement seems generally made.

8Tanner v. Smart, 6 B. & C. 603; Stamford, etc., Banking Co. v. Smith, [1892] 1Q. B. 765 (but under the English statute for reviving obligations under seal an acknowledgment to a stranger has been held sufficient. Moo-die v. Bannister, 4 Drewry, 432); Fort Scott v. Hickman, 112 U. S. 150, 161, 28 L. Ed. 636, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 56; Ringo v. Brooks, 26 Ark. 640; Rounth-waite v, Rounthwaite (Cal.), 68 Pac. 304; Biddel v. Brizzolnra, 64 Cal. 354, 30 Pac. 609; Pierce v. Merrill, 128 Cal. 473, 61 Pac. 67, 79 Am. St. Rep. 63; Cunkle v. Heald, 6 Mackey, 485; Collar v. Patterson, 137 111. 403, 27 N. E. 004; Albers Commission Co. v. Sessel, 87 111. App. 378 (affd. in 103 111. 153,61 N. E. 1075); Niblack v. Goodman, 67 Ind. 174; Sibert v. Wilder, 16 Kans. 176, 22 Am. Rep. 280; Clawson v. Mo-Cunes Adm., 20 Kan. 337; Proctor v. Bell's Adm'r, 97 Ky. 98, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 823, 30 S. W. 15; Davis v. Strange, 166 Ky. 420, 161 S. W. 217; Cape Girardeau County v. Harbison, 58 Mo. 90; Williamson v. Williamson, 50 Mo. App. 194; Swinley v. Force, 78 N. J. Eq. 52, 78 Atl. 249; Wakeman v. Sherman, 0 N. Y. 85; In re Kendrick, 107 N. Y.

104, 13 N. E. 762; Hussey v. Kirkman, 95 N. C. 63; Spongier v. Spangler, 122 Pa. St. 358,15 Atl. 436, 9 Am. St. Rep. 114 (cf. Croman v. Stull, 119 Pa. 91, 12 Atl. 812); Parker v. Remington, 15 R. I. 300, 3 Atl. 590, 2 Am. St. Rep. 897; Robbins v. Farley, 2 Strobh. 348; Maxwell v. Reilly, 11 Lea, 307; Rogers v. Quinn, L. R, 26 Ir. 136; Watson Mfg. Co. v. Sample, 12 Manitoba, 373; Col-quhoun v. Murray, 26 Ont. App. 204.

9 Strong v. Andros, 34 Dist. Col. App. 278; O'Hara v. Murphy, 196 111. 599, 63 N. E. 1081; Miller v. Teeter, 53 N. J. Eq. 262,31 Atl. 394, DeFreest v. Warner, 98 N. Y. 217, 50 Am. Rep. 657; Fuqua v. Dinwiddie, 6 Lea, 645. In Big Diamond Milling Co. v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., (Minn. 1919), 171 N. W. 799, a printed statement issued by a number of railroads "to the public" to the effect that the railroads would pay all properly supported claims of a certain class, was held to extend the statutory period in favor of the individual claimant who brought suit. See also Belcher v. Tacoma Eastern R. Co., 99 Wash. 34, 168 Pac. 782.

10 St. John v. Garrow, 4 Port. 223, 29 Am. Dec. 280; Smith v. Campbell, 5 Harr. 380; Doran v. Doran, 145 Ia. 122, 123 N. W. 996,25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 805; Utz v. Utz, 34 La. Ann. 752; Peavy v. Brown, 22 Me. 100; Stewart a. Garrett, 65 Md. 392, 5 Atl. 324, 57 Am. Rep. 333; Whitney v. Bigelow, 4 Pick. 110; Titus v. Ash, 24 N. H. 319; Mink-ler v. Minkler, 16 Vt. 193.

11 Jackson d. Ogg, 5 Jurist (N. S.), 976; Merriam v. Leonard, 6 Cush. 151; Allen p. Collins, 70 Mo. 138, 35 Am. Rep. 416; Heaton p. Leonard, 69 Hun, 423. Compare Rogers v. Southern, 4 Baxter, 67.

12 Farrell v. Palmer, 36 Cal. 187; Re Sullenberger, 72 Cal. 549, 14 Pac. 513; Felty v. Young, 18 Md. 163; Thompson v. Richardson (Mo.), 195 S. W. 1039; Hill v. Hill, 51 S. C. 134, 28 S. E. 309. In Clark v. Hooper, 10 Bing. 480, a promise to one acting as administrator but not legally appointed, was held sufficient. See also Stamford Banking Co. v. Smith, [1892} 1 Q. B. 765; Spring v. Perkins, 156 Mich. 327; Croman v. Stull, 119 Pa. 91, 12 Atl. 812.

13 Bodger v. Arch, 10 Ex. 333; Baker v. Blaker, 55 L. T. (N. S.) 723; Robertson v. Bunill, 22 Ont. App. 356. But see Kisler v. Sanders, 40 Ind. 78.

14 Hodnett v. Gault, 64 N. Y. App. Div. 163, 71 N. Y. S. 831; Croman v. Stull, 119 Pa. 91, 12 Atl. 812; Peters v. Rothermel, 30 Pa. Sup. 281; Draw-baugh v. Drawbaugh, 7 Pa. Sup. 349, 351. But see Visher v, Wilbur, 5 Cal.

App. 562, 573, 90 Pac. 1065, 91 Pac. 412.

15 McBrayer v. Mills, 62 S. Car. 36, 39 S. E. 788.

16Lamar v. Manro, 10 Gill & J. 60.

17 McRae v. Kennon, 1 Ala. 295, 34 Am. Deo. 777; Bird v. Adams, 7 Ga. 505; Little v. Blont, 9 Pick. 4S8; Way v. Sperry, 6 Cush. 238,52 Am. Dec. 779; Soulden v. VanRensseker, 9 Wend. 293. But see contra Thompson v. Gilreath, 3 Jones L. 493. See also White v. Cush-ing, 30 Me. 267; Depuy v. Swart, 3 Wend. 135, 20 Am. Dec. 673; Moore v. Viele, 4 Wend. 420; Walbridge v. Har-roon, 18 Vt. 448, where it was held that a new promise to pay a negotiable note discharged by bankruptcy, was not negotiable, and did not revive the negotiable character of the original obligation. See supra, Sec. 167.

18Stamford, etc., Banking Co, v. Smith, [1892] 1 Q. B. 765.

19 Girard Trust Co. v. Owen, 83 Kan, 692, 112 Pac. 619, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 262. See also Maurice v. Fowler, 78 N. Y. Misc. 357, 138 N. Y. S. 425.