Where a third person promises a creditor to discharge a debt due from another to the latter, the arrangement may conceivably take one of three forms:

1. The new promisor may undertake a several obligation

Husen, 11 Mich. 219; Halated v. Francis, 31 Mich. 113; Shoemaker v. King, 40 Pa, 107, a. c. 1 Pearson, 206; Maule v. Bucknell, 50 Pa. 39. But see Town-send v. Long, 77 Pa. 143, 18 Am. Rep. 438; Taylor v. Preston, 79 Pa. 436;

Fehlinger v. Wood, 134 Pa. 517, 19 Atl. 746.

34 See supra, Sec. 452.

35 See supra, Sec. 473.

36 See infra, Sec. 478.

either absolute, to pay the debt in any event, or conditional, to pay it if the original debtor makes default.

2. The new promisor may, with the concurrence of the original debtor and on his behalf, make his promise in substitution for the obligation of the original debtor. This arrangement when accepted by the creditor will effect a novation.

3. The new promise may be made as in 2, except that the original debtor does not assent thereto. As a debtor's obligation can be discharged at law only by himself or by his authorized agent37 such an agreement does not create a legal novation; but since a creditor who had agreed to the substitution would not be allowed by equity to enforce his claim against the original debtor,38 the transaction may be called an equitable novation. If the agreement is of the second kind, and the debt of the party primarily liable is thereby discharged, the new promisor who thus assumes the obligation in consideration of the discharge of the original debtor, is binding though oral.39 The

37See infra, Sec.1857,

38See infra, Sec.1860.

39Goodman v. Chase, 1 B. & Ald. 297; Butcher v. Steuart, 11 M. ft W. 857; Gull v. Lindsay, 4 Exch. 45, 52; Carlisle p. Campbell, 76 Ala. 247; Aultman v. Fletcher, 110 Ala. 452, 458, 18 So. 215; Beitman v. Birmingham Faint ft Glass Co., 185 Ala. 313, 64 So. 600; McLaren v. Hutchinson, 23 Cal. 187; Welch p. Kenny, 40 Cal. 49; Baxter v. Chico Const. Co., 31 Calif. App. 492, 160 Pac. 1084; Dillaby p. Wilcox, 60 Conn. 71, 22 Atl. 591, 13 L. R. A. 643, 25 Am. St. Rep. 299; Buchanan v. Moran, 62 Conn. 83, 25 Atl. 396; Karr v. Porter, 4 Houst. 297; Sapp v. Faircloth, 70 Ga. 690; Harris v. Jones, 140 Ga. 768, 79 S. E. 841; Johnson p. Cothern, 12 Ga. App. 258, 77 S. E. 207; Williams v. Garrison (Ga. App.), 93 S. E. 510; Casey v. Miller, 3 Idaho, 567, 32 Pac. 195; Runde v. Runde, 69 111. 98; Lindley v. Simpson, 45 111. App. 648; Hopkins v. Carr, 31 Ind. 260; Bowes v. Kurts, 37 Iowa, 239; Lester v. Bowman, 39 Iowa, All; Harris Emery Co. v. Howerton, 154 la. 472, 134 N. W. 1068; Frohardt v. Duff, 156 Ia. 144,136 N. W. 609, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 242; Brant p. Johnson, 46 Kans. 389, 26 Pac. 735; Daniels v. Gibson, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 847, 47 S. W. 621; Day p. cloe, 4 Bush, 563; Whittemore p. Wentworth, 76 Me. 20; Webster v. LeCompte, 74 Md. 249, 22 Atl. 232; Walker v. Penniman, 8 Gray, 233; Wood p. Corcoran, 1 Allen, 405; Langdon v. Hughes, 107 Mass. 272; Eden v. Chaffee, 160 Mass. 225, 35 N. E. 675; Griffin p. Cunningham, 183 Mass. 505, 67 N. E. 660; MoNulty v. Graff, 211 Mass. 489; Mulcrone p. American Co., 55 Mich. 622, 22 N. W. 67; Wilhelm v. Voss, 118 Mich. 106, 76 N. W. 308; Yale v. Edgerton, 14 Minn. 194; Wright v. McCully, 67 Mo. 134; Wilson p. Vans, 54 Mo. App. 221; Bean p. Board, 164 Mo. App. 186; First Nat. Bank v. Dohm, 52 N. J. L. 363, 19 Atl. 258; Meriden Britannia Co. p. Zingsen, 48 N. Y. 247, 8 Am. Rep. 549; Booth p. Eighmie, 60 N. Y. 238,19 Am. Deo. 171; First Nat. Bank v. Chalmers, 144 N. Y. 432, 39 N. E. 831; Stanly p. Hendricks, 13 bed. 86; discharge of the old debt at the request of the new promisor is as adequate a quid pro quo for the creation of a new original debt as the payment by the creditor of an amount of money equal to the old debt would be. And the novation may relate to part only of the debt, and need not become effective at the time of the defendant's new promise.40 So the new promisor need not extinguish his whole liability to the debtor but may assume the latter's entire debt in partial discharge of his own obligation.41 There seems no reason to doubt that the new promise in what has been called an equitable novation would be equally without the statute.