If an indorsement of a payment upon a debt is made by the debtor,1 or by his agent,2 or by the creditor with the consent of the debtor,3 such indorsement is clearly sufficient to show that such payment has been made and that the statute of limitations does not operate. If the indorsement is made by the creditor and he seeks to use such indorsement to prevent the statute of limitations from operating, the question of the effect of such indorsement then depends upon the circumstances under which it was made. Indorsement by the creditor of a payment on a debt is, if made a considerable time before the debt is barred by statute, an admission against his own interest, and hence is admissible in evidence to prove such payment for the purpose of extending the period of limitations.4 If made after the statute has run5 or shortly before the statutory period has elapsed, it is in favor of the creditor and not against his interest, and hence not admissible in evidence if the fact of payment is not otherwise shown. Since the date determines the admissibility of the entry, the entry is not proof of its own date.6 In any event an indorsement is not competent evidence as to a fact not within the personal knowledge of the party making it. Thus if the payment is actually made by a third person the indorsement is incompetent to show that the money was in fact furnished by the maker.7 If the fact of payment is otherwise shown, the indorsement of the credit by the creditor may be considered as evidence.8

2 Hemphill v. Pry, 183 Pa. St. 593; 38 Atl. 1020.

3 Foster v. Starkey, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 324; McLaren v. McMar-tin, 36 N. Y. 88.

4 In re Claghorn's Estate, 181 Pa. St. 608; 37 Atl. 921.

5 Cox v. Phelps, 65 Ark. 1; 45 S. W. 990.

6 7m re Hale (1899), 2 Ch. 107.

7 That such payment waives the bar generally. Perry v. Horack, 63

Kan. 88; 88 Am. St. Rep. 225; 64 Pac. 990. That such payment does not waive the bar. ^Etna Life Ins. Co. v. McNeely. 166 111. 540; 46 N. E. 1130; affirming, 65 111. App. 222.

8 Close v. Potter, 155 N. Y. 145; 49 N. E. 6S6.

9 Patterson v. Thompson, 86 Fed. 85.

10 Chapman v. Lynch, 156 N. Y. 551; 51 N. E. 275.

1 Gay v. Hassom, 64 Vt. 495; 24 Atl. 715.

2 Foster v. Cochran, 89 Ga. 466; 15 S. E. 551.

3 Less v. Arndt, 68 Ark. 399; 59 S. W. 763; Sibley v. Phelps, 6 Cush. (Mass.) 172.

4 Mills v. Davis, 113 N. Y. 243; 3 L. R. A. 394; 21 N. E. 68.

5 Wellman v. Miner. 179 111. 326; 53 N. E. 609; Easter v. Easter, 44 Kan. 151; 24 Pae. 57; Mills v. Davis, 113 N. Y. 243; 3 L. R. A. 394; 21 N. E. 68; Roseboom v. Bil-lington. 17 Johns. 182; Bond v. Wilson, 129 N. C. 387; 40 S. E. 182.

So by statute even if made before limitations have run. Fowles v. Joslyn, 130 Mich. 272; 89 N. W. 946; Christopher v. Wilkins, 64 N. J. Eq. 354; 51 Atl. 728. Contra, even after debt is barred, McDowell v. McDowell, 75 Vt. 401; 98 Am. St. Rep. 831; 56 Atl. 98.

6 Biscoe v. Huff. 75 Mo. App. 288; Smith v. Wells, 70 N. H. 49; 46 Atl. 51.

1 Arbuckle v. Templeton, 65 Vt. 205; 25 Atl. 1095.

2 Wellman v. Miner, 179 111. 326; 53 N. E. 609.