The fact that the debtor entered into negotiations with the creditor to ascertain the terms on which the debt in question could be settled,1 or that he offers a compromise,2 as by attempting to buy the note in question,3 is not sufficient. An offer to arbitrate,4 or to leave the dispute in question to the decision of some third person,3 is not sufficient to waive the bar of the statute. Suggesting that some third person could be held liable upon the debt in question, as a letter written by a surety to his principal at the request of the payee urging him to pay the obligation,6 or a letter by the executor of one maker of the note to the holder, advising him to look to the surviving maker for payment,7 is not a waiver of the bar of the statute. A declaration by the debtor of an intention to make a provision for the creditor by will does not recognize the debt as a subsisting enforceable liability, and does not amount to an acknowledgment.8 If, however, there is a distinct promise to pay the debt, the fact that the debtor claims that the creditor should voluntarily make some reduction from the total amount does not make the new promise invalid.9

4 Blades v. Bank (Ky.), 56 S. W. 415.

5 Prescott v. Vershire, 63 Vt. 517; 22 Atl. 655.

6 Davies v. Edwards, 7 Exch. 22; Richardson v. Thomas, 13 Gray (Mass.) 381; 74 Am. Dec. 636; Stoddard v. Doane, 7 Gray (Mass.) 387; Roscoe v. Hale, 7 Gray (Mass.) 274; Hidden v. Cozzens, 2 R. I. 401; 60 Am. Dec. 93.

7 Pierce v. Merrill, 128 Cal. 473; 79 Am. St. Rep. 63; 61 Pac. 67.

8 Elliott v. Leake, 5 Mo. 208, 210; 32 Am. Dec. 314; quoted in Chid-sey v. Powell, 91 Mo. 622, 626; 60 Am. Rep. 267; 4 S. W. 446.

9 Chidsey v. Powell, 91 Mo. 622, 627; 60 Am. Rep. 267; 4 S. W. 446.

10 Chidsey v. Powell, 91 Mo. 622;

60 Am. Rep. 267; 4 S. W. 446; Boyd, Adm'r of Carr, v. Hurlbut, 41 Mo. 264.

1 Thomas v. Carey, 26 Colo. 485; 58 Pac. 1093; Kelly v. Strouse, 116 Ga. 872; 43 S. E. 280; Ennis v. Palace Car Co., 165 111. 161; 46 N. E. 439; Schonbachler v. Schonbach-ler (Ky.), 57 S. W. 232; Mumford v. Freeman, 8 Met. (Mass.) 432; 41 Am. Dec. 532; Nelson v. Becker, 32 Neb. 99; 48 N. W. 962; Stiles v. Laurel Fork, etc., Coal Co., 47 W. Va. 838; 35 S. E. 986.

2 Chism v. Barnes, 104 Ky. 310; 47 S. W. 232; 47 S. W. 875; Andrew v. Kennedy, 4 Okla. 625; 46 Pac. 485.

3 Connecticut, etc., Co. v. Wead, 172 N. Y. 497; 92 Am. St. Rep. 756; 65 N. E. 261.