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.
Acknowledgment can affect the interests only of the party making the acknowledgment, either in person or by his duly authorized agent. Thus acknowledgment by one joint debtor1 does not waive the bar of the statute as to the other joint debtor. A written acknowledgment of the existence of a mortgage made by persons who succeeded the mortgagor in interest, starts the statute of limitations to running again from the date of such acknowledgment as to the mortgage, although no promise is made to pay the mortgage debt.2 The mortgagor cannot, after conveying the realty covered by the mortgage, revive the mortgage as against the grantee by an acknowledgment of the mortgage debt.3 The act of an assignee in bankruptcy in taking possession of premises mortgaged by the bankrupt, and asking for leave to sell the equity of redemption, amounts, prima facie, to the recognition of the mortgage, and stops the statute of limitations from running.4 Acknowledgment of a mortgage debt by a husband is sufficient to start limitations to running anew as to a mortgage on the homestead executed by husband and wife.5 An acknowledgment by an executor is held in some jurisdictions not to bind the estate, though it may amount to a new promise imposing a personal liability upon him.6 Some courts hold that if there are two or more executors, the acknowledgment made by one of them binds the decedent's estate.7
10 Walsh v. Mayer, 111 U. S. 31.
1 Fillett v. Linsey, 6 J. J. Mar. (Ky.) 337; Gray v. McDowell, 6 Bush. (Ky.) 475.
2 Bullion, etc., Bank v. Hegler, 93 Fed. 890; Wald v. Arnold, 168 Mass. 134; 46 N. E. 419.
3 Rudolph v. Sellers, 106 Ga. 485; 32 S. E. 599.
4 Bangs v. Hall, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 368; 13 Am. Dec. 437; Linderman v. Pomeroy, 142 Pa. St. 168; 24
Am. St. Rep. 494; 21 Atl. 320.
5 Bangs v. Hall, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 368; 13 Am. Dec. 437.
6 Wood v. Merrietta, 66 Kan. 748; 71 Pac. 579.
1 Boynton v. Spafford, 162 111. 113; 53 Am. St. Rep. 274; 44 N. E. 379; affirming. 61 111. App. 384; Tate v. Hawkins, 81 Ky. 577; 50 Am. Rep. 181: Meade v. McDowell, 5 Binn. (Pa.) 195; Phelps v. Stewart, 12 Vt. 256.