If B is indebted to A, and C is indebted to B, and by mutual agreement between A, B and C, C agrees to pay his indebtedness to A, B agrees to discharge his obligation to C, and A agrees to discharge his obligation to B, the transaction is a novation in the more limited sense of the term, and the covenants discharging B and C are valid and supported by a valuable consideration.1 The simplest form of novation is here given, consisting of two original debts and three parties. It is, of course, perfectly possible that there may be several debts and a corresponding increase in the number of parties.2

A new promise from the substituted debtor and a release of the claim against the substituted debtor are essential elements of a novation.3 Hence, if B, the original debtor, keeps silent when C, the new promisor, makes a verbal agreement with the creditor, A. because B is too sick to talk, no novation exists.4 The consent of the original debtor, C, is an essential element of the novation,5 either to discharge B from his liability to C,6 or to enable A to maintain an action against C.7 The consent of the original creditor is also necessary.8 Hence, if B hires C and agrees that C shall be paid by receiving goods from the firm of A and B, and C buys goods on credit from such firm, no novation exists if A has not assented to such arrangement, and B must pay his obligation to the firm, and recover his indebtedness from C.9 The assent of the parties may be implied 10 as well as expressed. It is not necessary that the parties should all assent to the transaction at the same moment. If A and B agree and notify C of their agreement and he subsequently assents thereto, the contract of novation is valid if C's assent is given while the agreement between A and B stands ready for C's acceptance, like an unrevoked offer.11 To amount to a novation, the original obligation owing by the original debtor must be extinguished.12 If the original obligation survives, the transaction can not amount to a novation, whatever else it may be, since there can be no consideration for C's promise to pay A if C is to remain liable to B.

1 England. Noble v. National Discount Co., 6 H. & N. 224.

United States. Holloway v. White-Dunham Shoe Co., 151 Fed. 216, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 704; Rensselaer & S. R. Co. v. Irwin, 249 Fed. 726 [affirming decree, 239 Fed. 739. and certiorari denied, 246 U. S. 61, 62 L. ed. 931].

Florida. Mills v. McMillan, - Fla. - , 82 So. 812.

Iowa. Watt v. German Sav. Bank, 183 I. 346, 165 N. W. 897.

Indiana. Kitchell v. Schneider, 180 Ind. 589, 103 N. E. 647.

Massachusetts. Stowell v Gram, 184 Mass. 562, 69 N. E. 342.

Michigan. Weingarden v. Folly Theatre Co., 189 Mich. 220, 155 N. W. 501.

Oklahoma. McFarland v. Mayo. - Okla. - , L. R. A. 1917C, 901, 162 Pac. 753; Burford v. Hughes, - Okla. - , 182 Pac. 689.

Oregon. Clark-Woodward Drug Co. v. Hot Lake Sanitorium Co., 75 Or. 234, 146 Pac. 135.

Washington. Davie v. Gutheil, 87 Wash 596, 152 Pac. 14.

West Virginia. Lutz v. Williams, 79

W. Va. 609, L. R. A. 1918A, 76, 91 8. E. 460.

Wisconsin. Lane v. Magdeburg, 81 Wis. 344, 51 N. W. 562.

The adoption of a contract by a third person is a form of novation for which a valuable consideration is necessary. Edwards v. Heralds of Liberty, - Pa. St. - , 107 Atl. 324.

See Novation, by James Barr Ames, 6 Harvard Law Review, 184.

See also, Liability of Maker of Check after Certification, by Francis R. Jones, 6 Harvard Law Review, 138.

2 Mills v. McMillan, - Fla. - 82 So. 812; Henry v. Ritenour, 31 Ind. 136; Lester v. Bowman, 39 I. 611; Finan v. Babcock, 58 Mich. 301, 25 X. W. 294.

3 Alabama. Pugh v. Barnes, 108 Ala. 167, 19 So. 370.

California. Pimental v. Marques, 109 Cal. 406, 42 Pac. 159; Carpy v. Dow-dell. 131 Cal. 495, 63 Pac. 778.

Illinois. Walker v. Wood, 170 111. 463, 48 N. E. 919.

Indiana. Cox v. Baltimore & O. S W. R. Co., 180 Ind. 495, 50 L. R. A. (N.S.) 453, 103 N. E. 337.

Iowa. Kirchman v. Coal Co., 112 Ia 668. 52 L. R. A. 318, 84 N. W. 939.

Kentucky. MeGowan v. People's Bank, - Ky. - , 213 S. W. 579.

Michigan. Dean v. Ellis. 108 Mich. 240, 65 N. W. 071; Darling v. Rutherford, 125 Mich. 70, 83 N. W. 999.

Minnesota. Hanson v. Nelson, 82 Minn. 220, 84 N. W. 742.

Oklahoma. Burford v. Hughes, - Okla. - -, 182 Pac. 689.

Vermont. In re Lemerise, 73 Vt. 304, 50 Atl. 1062.

West Virginia. Lutz v. Williams, 79 W. Va. 609, L. R. A. 1918A, 76, 91 S. E. 460.

Wisconsin. Cook v. Durham, 61 Wis. 15, 20 N. W. 670: Milcy v. Heaney, 168 Wis. 58, 169 N. W. 64; Elkey v. Seymour, 169 Wis. 223, 172 N. W. 138.

A promise which is intended as an additional security can not operate as a novation. MeGowan v. People's Bank, - Ky. - , 213 S. W. 579.

4 Hanson v. Nelson, 82 Minn. 220, 84 N. W. 742.

5 Dean v. Ellis, 108 Mich. 240, 65 N.

W. 971; Gaar v. Rogers, 46 Okla. 67, 148 Pac. 161.

6 Illinois, etc., Co. v. Wagon Co., 112 Fed. 737, 50 C. C. A. 504; Carpy v. Dowdell, 131 Cal. 495, 63 Pac. 778; In re Lemerise, 73 Vt. 304, 50 Atl. 1062.

1 Darling v. Rutherford, 125 Mich 70, 83 N. W. 999.

8 California. Chapin v. Brown, 10] Cal. 500, 35 Pac. 1051.

Indiana. Kitchell v. Schneider, 180 Ind. 589, 103 N. E. 647.

Iowa. Park v. Best, 176 Ia. 7. 157 N. W. 233.

Oklahoma. McFarland v. Mayo, -Okla. - , L. R. A. 1917C, 901, 162 Pac. 753.

Oregon. Clark-Woodward Drug Co. v. Hot Lake Sanitorium Co., 75 Or. 234, 146 Pac. 135.

9Kirchman v Coal Co., 112 Ia. 668, 52 L. R. A. 318, 84 N. W. 939.

10 Whitney v. Ins. Co., 127 Cal. 464, 59 Pac. 897; Shoemaker Piano Mfg. Co. v. Bernard, 70 Tenn. (2 Lea) 358.

11 McLaren v. Hutchinson, 22 Cal. 187, 83 Am. Dec. 59; Comley v. D U4 N. Y. 161, 21 N. E. 135.

In a jurisdiction in which the private seal still has its common-law effect, the contract of novation must, apparently, be under seal if one of the prior contracts, which it is sought to discharge by the contract of novation, is under seal.13