This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
A distinct and unqualified admission of a debt as a present subsisting liability, without anything further to rebut the presumption that the debtor promises to pay it, is a sufficient waiver of the bar of the statute.1 Thus a written statement by the debtor, estimating his liability in excess of what it really was,2 or a statement of the debtor that he has received of the creditor a specified sum "at various times to date, which is hereby acknowledged,"3 or a statement by a mortgagor to the mortgagee, " I shall sell our cattle the first chance. I am tired of the business and want to pay off that mortgage,"4 or a statement in a memorandum of settlement, " This payment has no bearing upon the amount due (the creditor) by said account dated October 1, 1890,"5 or a statement by the debtor when an account is presented to him, that he will settle the account and pay what he owes, but that a certain credit, to which he is entitled, has not been given him, and his acquiescence when the entry of such credit is pointed out to him,6 or apologizing for failure to make a payment upon the debt and promising to make a payment thereon if given time,7 or a statement by a surety to the payee of the note that the payee must proceed to collect from the principal debtor, and that if it is not promptly collected the surety " will not longer be held good for the note,"8 or sending a draft with the statement that it "pays interest" upon a specified note,9 or a statevent by the debtor in response to a demand from the creditor that he keep certain mortgaged realty insured for a certain sum, that the property is enough to cover the debt even if the building were to burn without insurance,10 have each of them been held to be acknowledgments sufficient to waive the bar of the statute.
1 Southern Pacific Co. v. Prosser, 122 Cal. 413; 55 Pae. 145; Austin v. Bostwick, 9 Conn. 496; 25 Am. Dee. 42; Harrell v. Davis. 108 Ga. 789; 33 S. E. 852; Babylon v. Dnt-tera, 89 Md. 444; 43 Atl. 938: De Kruif v. Flieman. 130 Mich. 12; 89 N. W. 558; Rumsey v. Settle, 120 Mich. 372; 79 N. W. 579; Hale v. Hale, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 183; Thomas v. Glendinning. 13 Utah 47; 44 Pae. 652.
2 In re Lorillnrd. 107 Fed. 677; 46 C. C. A. 553.
3 Custy v. Dolan, 159 Mass. 245; 38 Am. St. Rep. 419; 34 N. E. 360.
4 Reymond v. Newcomb, 10 N. M. 151; 61 Pae. 205.
5 Savage v. Gaut (Tenn. Ch. App.). 57 S. W. 170.
6 Bean v. Wheatley, 13 App. D. C. 473.
7 Brintall v. Graves, 168 Mass. 384; 47 N. E. 119.
8 Harms v. Freytag. 59 Neb. 359; 80 N. W. 1039.
9 Campbell v. Campbell, 118 la 131; 91 N. W. 894.