The power of a partner to bind his firm by a part payment or a new promise involves a different question from that involved in the case of ordinary joint contractors, and prior to dissolution of the partnership, a partner has implied power to bind the firm either by part payment,37 or by a new promise.38 After dissolution of the firm, though some authorities hold that one partner may still bind the firm by part payment39 or a new promise,40 it is almost universally held that after the debt has once been barred, a new promise or part payment by a partner of a dissolved firm will not revive it.41 And by the weight of authority, in no case will unauthorized part payment or new promise after dissolution of a partnership either toll the running of the Statute or revive a barred debt.42

34See cases cited in the preceding

35 Gray v. Pierson, 7 Idaho, 640, 64. Pac. 233; Elmore v. Fanning, 86 Kans. 60!, 117 Pac. 1019, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 686; Holmes v. Durell, 61 Me. 201; Bailey v. Corliss, 61 Vt. 366. Cp. Mil -ler v. Talcott, 64 N. Y. 114.

36 Cook v. Atkins, 173 Ala. 363, 66 So. 224; Holmes v. Durrell, 51 Me. 201; Mainsinger v. Mohr, 41 Mich. 686, 3 N. W. 183; Miller v. Talcott, 64 N. Y. 114. In Gray p. Pierson, 7 Idaho, 640, 64 Pac. 233, it was held that a joint debtor who made a payment on account of his co-debtor, did not thereby revive his own liability though he said nothing to the creditor to indicate that the payment was not made on his own account. This case is, however, inconsistent with those previously cited, and seems impossible to support on principle.

37 Watson v. Woodman, L. R. 20 Eq. 721, 730; Faulkner v. Bailey, 123 Mass. 588, 589; Tappan v. Kimball.

30 N. H. 136; Wood v, Barber, 90 N. C. 76; Carlton v. Ludlow Woolen Mill, 28 Vt. 604.

38 Tate v. Clements, 16 Fla. 339, 354, 26 Am. Rep. 709; Abrahams v. Myers, 40 Md. 499.

39Burr d. Williams, 20 Ark. 171; Beardsley v. Hall, 36 Conn. 270, 4 Am. Rep. 74; Tillinghast v. Nourse, Stone & Co., 14 Ga. 641; Schindel v. Gates, 46 Md. 604, 24 Am. Rep. 526; County of Vernon v. Stewart, 64 Mo. 403; Mer-ritt v. Day, 38 N. J. L. 32, 20 Am. Rep. 362; Casebolt v. Ackerman, 46 N. 1. L. 169.

40Austin v. Boatwick, 9 Conn. 496, 25 Am. Deo. 42; Carroll v. Gayarree, 15 La. Ann. 671; Newman v. McComas, 43 Md. 70.

41 See cases cited in the preceding note, and also in the following note. See, however, Mix v. Shattuck, 60 Vt. 421, 28 Am. Rep. 511, which held the firm bound by a part payment made by a partner after dissolution of the firm and after the debt had been barred.