In order to revive a barred debt, the new promise must refer to it in such a way as to identify it.1 Such reference must be plain and unmistakable.2 If there are several different claims existing between the creditor and the debtor, a new promise to be enforceable must indicate writh reasonable certainty to what claim the debtor refers.3 Hence a promise which may refer, either to an account already barred or to one not yet barred, is not sufficient to remove the bar as to the former account.4 According to some authorities, a promise which in fact is merely a promise to pay what may prove to be due, if anything, is not a promise sufficient to revive a debt.5 Thus a statement "Whatever is due is ready, as it has been for seven years, whenever I can safely pay either you or " another party named, shows such doubt as to the amount due, and to whom it is due, that it does not stop the running of the statute.6 So a promise, " I'll pay you all I owe you," is not a sufficient acknowledgment.7 A was liable to B on six different bills of exchange. A promise in writing " to work it off as soon as possible," without identifying the debt further, is not sufficient.8 If a written promise to pay a debt refers to some specific liability, without stating the amount due, parol evidence is admissible to identify the debt in question, and to show how much is due thereon.9 It is a question of fact whether a new promise refers to a debt barred by limitations or not.10 If only one debt exists between the parties, a promise by the debtor to pay all that he owes, has been held sufficient without further identification of the debt.11 If a debtor promises to pay all the notes and bills held by the creditor against him at the date of such promise " as shown by the same and in the manner shown by the same," and the debtor admits that such bills are just and unpaid, the amount thereof and the items thereof may be shown by extrinsic evidence.12

10 Kelly v. Telle, 66 Ark. 464; 51 S. W. 633; Newhall v. Hatch, 134 Cal. 269; 55 L. .R. A. 673; 66 Pac. 266; London, etc., Bank v. Parrott, 125 Cal. 472; 73 Am. St. Rep. 64; 58 Pac. 164; London, etc., Bank v. Bandmann, 120 Cal. 220; 65 Am. St. Rep. 179; 52 Pac. 583; Southern Pacific Co. v. Prosser, 122 Cal. 413; 55 Pac. 145; McConaughy v. Wilsey, 115 la. 589; 88 N. W. 1101; Lindsey v. Lyman, 37 la. 206; Penley v. Waterhouse, 3 la. 418; Rankin v. Anderson (Ky.), 69 S. W. 705.

11 McConaughy v. Wilsey, 115 la. 589; 88 N. W. 1101.

12 Southern Pacific Co. v. Prosser, 122 Cal. 413; 55 Pac. 145.

13 Rankin v. Anderson (Ky.), 69 S. W. 705.

14 Rankin v. Anderson (Ky.), 69 S. W. 705.

1 Sears v. Hicklin, 3 Colo. App. 331; 33 Pac. 137; Stout v. Marshall, 75 la. 498; 39 N. W. 808; Ashby v. Washburn, 23 Neb. 571; 37 N. W. 267; Hancock v. Melloy, 189 Pa. St. 569; 42 Atl. 292; Cole's Executor v. Martin, 99 Va. 223; 37 S. E. 907.

2 Paille v. Plant, 109 Ga. 247; 34 S. E. 274.

3 Thomas v. Carey, 26 Colo. 485; 58 Pac. 1093; Buckingham v. Smith, 23 Conn. 453; Smith v. Moulton, 12 Minn. 352; Cole's Executor v. Martin, 99 Va. 223; 37 S. E. 907.

4 Cole's Executor v. Martin, 99 Va. 223; 37 S. E. 907. See to the same effect, Thomas v. Carey, 26 Colo. 485; 58 Pac. 1093.

5 Ward v. Jack, 172 Pa. St. 416; 51 Am. St. Pep. 744; 33 Atl. 577; Liskey v. Paul, 100 Va. 764; 42 S. E. 875.

6 Braithwaite v. Harvey, 14 Mont. 208; 43 Am. St. Rep. 625; 27 L. R. A. 101; 36 Pac. 38.

7 Miller v. Baschore, 83 Pa. St. 356; 24 Am. Rep. 187.

8 Opp v. Wack, 52 Ark. 288; 5 L. R. A. 743; 12 S. W. 565.

9 First National Bank v. Woodman, 93 la. 668; 57 Am. St. Rep. 287; 62 N. W. 28; Patterson v. Neuer, 165 Pa. St. 66; 30 Atl. 748.

10 Beale v. Nind, 4 B. & Aid. 568; Whitney v. Bigelow, 4 Pick. (Mass.) 110; Wilcox v. Clarke, 18 R. I. 324; 27 Atl. 219; Shaw v. Newell, 2 R. I. 264.

11 O'Hara v. Murphy, '196 111. 599; 63 N. E. 1081.

12 Pollak v. Billing, 131 Ala. 519; 32 So. 639.