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.
Payment made by an administrator after decedent's death has been held to waive the bar of the statute of limitations,1 at least where the widow and heirs acquiesce in such payments upon a debt, secured by mortgage, upon realty in which they are interested, some of the heirs being minors.2 This power clearly exists where limitations has not run at the death of the decedent.3 It has been held, however, that payment by personal representatives is of no more effect than a new promise by them, and that accordingly such payment, whether it makes an executor liable personally or not, does not bind the decedent's estate.4 Under a special statute a payment made upon a claim which has not been authenticated as required by. statute does not operate to prevent the running of the statute of limitations thereon.5 A receiver, appointed under a mortgage which authorizes the mortgagee to appoint a receiver with power to manage and carry on the business as he may think fit, has" been held to have authority to make part payments on an unsecured business debt to waive limitations in favor of the mortgagor.6 Whether payment by a widow upon a debt of her husband's made to protect her homestead and dower interest in his realty waives the bar of the statute against his estate generally, is a question upon which there is a conflict of authority.7 Payment by a corporation does not renew a cause of action against its stockholders,8 or against its directors on their statutory liability because they declared a dividend while the corporation was insolvent,9 or against the directors because of their failure to file the report required by statute.10
9 Murdock v. Waterman, 145 N. Y. 55; 27 L. R. A. 418; 39 N. E. 829. Contra, Longstreet v. Brown (N. J. Eq.), 37 Atl. 56.
10 Mack v. Anderson, 165 N. Y. 529; 59 N. E. 289.
11 Cook v. Trust Co., 106 Ky. 803; sub nomine, Cook v. Bramel, 45 L. R. A. 212; 51 S. W. 600. Contra, see obiter in Mack v. Anderson, 165 N. Y. 529; 59 N. E. 289.
12 Cook v. Trust Co., 106 Ky. 803; sub nomine, Cook v. Bramel, 45 L. R. A. 212; 51 S. W. 600.
13 Kendall v. Tracy, 64 Vt. 522; 24 Atl. 1118. However in Hughes v. Edwards, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 489, which is often cited on this point, it does not appear from the opinion whether the payment involved was made before or after the conveyance by the mortgagor.
14 Longstreet v. Brown (N. J. Eq.), 37 Atl. 56; Hollister v. York, 59 Vt. 1; 9 Atl. 2.
1 Waughop v. Bartlett, 165 111. 124; 46 N. E. 197; Slattery v. Doyle, 180 Mass. 27; 61 N. E. 264.