An unaccepted offer is not such a new promise as will render the former debt enforceable.1 A promise by the debtor to the creditor to pay a debt barred by bankruptcy if he were given time is unenforceable if it is not shown that such offer was accepted and a definite time fixed for extension.2 If the debtor offers to pay in instalments and the creditor refuses this offer, there is no new contract, and the bar of the statute is not waived.3

In order to revive a debt which has been barred by a discharge in bankruptcy an express promise is necessary.4 This promise must be clear and unequivocal.5 A note given for such pre-existing debt is a sufficient express promise,6 as is a confession of judgment for such debt.7

S. 625, 57 L. ed. 676 [affirming, Zavelo v. Reeves, 171 Ala. 401, 54 So. 654; citing, Kirkpatrick v. Tattersall, 13 Mees. & W. 766; Griel v. Solomon, S2 Ala. 85, 2 So. 322; Lanagin v. Now-land, 44 Ark. 84; Knapp v. Hoyt, 57 la. 591, 42 Am. Rep. 50, 10 N. W. 025; Otis v. Gazlin, 31 Me. 567; Wiggin v. Hodgdon, 63 N. H. 30; Jersey City Ins. Co. v. Archer, 122 N. Y. 376, 25 N. E. 338; Hornthal v. McRae, 67 N. Car. 21; Fraley v. Kelley, 67 N. Car. 78; Hill v. Trainer, 40 Wis. 537, 5 N. W. 926].

Contra, Holt v. Akarman, 84 N. J. L. 371, 86 Atl. 408.

7 Thornton v. Nichols, 110 Ga. 50, 45 S. E. 785.

8Herrington v. Davitt, 220 N. Y. 162, 1 A. L. R. 1700, 115 N. E. 476;

Cohen v. Lachenmeier, 147 Wis. 640, 133 N. W. 1000.

9See Sec. 634.

10 Wolffe v. Eberlein, 74 Ala. 00, 40 Am. Rep. 800; Badger v. Gilmore, 33 N. H. 361, 66 Am. Dec. 720.

1 Stern v. Smith, 225 III 430, 80 N. E. 307; Riggs v. Roberts, 85 N. Car. 151, 30 Am. Rep. 692.

2 Smith v. Stanchfield, 84 Minn. 343, 87 N. W. 017.

3 International Harvester Co. v. Lyman, 00 Minn. 275, 06 N. W. 87.

4 Illinois. Katz v. Moessinger, 110 III. 372.

Indiana. Shockey v. Milk, 71 Ind. 288, 36 Am. Rep. 106.

New Hampshire. Stark v. Stinson, 23 N. H. 250.

Such promise must be clear and unequivocal.8 A promise by a debtor, "I will pay you some day - can't say when";9 or a promise, "You will be paid every dollar [of your claim] with interest as soon as I can sell the mill";10 or that the debtor "shall have her money even if but a little at a time,"11 has been held to be sufficiently clear and unequivocal. On the other hand, a statement to the effect that the bankrupt expects to pay more of his former debts, that the next debt paid will be that of the creditor in question, and that the bankrupt regards his promises good;12 or a statement that the bankrupt "will make a desperate effort to pay you something on the note";13 or a statement by him, "I will do all I can to pay you";14 or a statement, "Be satisfied; all will be right. I intend to pay all my just debts, if money can be made from hired labor. Security debt I can not pay. * * * All will be right betwixt me and my just creditors";15 or, "I can't pay you what I owe you, but I will pay you soon, or next winter. I need what money I now have for building and it will do you more good to get it in a lump";16 or, "I will send you the first spare 'V' or 'X' I have. * * * I will not be long either";17 or, "I shall not take any notice of your abuse of me till I have paid you the amount I owe you, which I shall surely do,"18 is not sufficiently clear and unequivocal to render the bankrupt liable upon such promise.

Ohio. Turner v. Chrisman, 20 Ohio 332; Dyer v. Isham, 4 Ohio C. C. 429, 2 Ohio C. D. 633.

Pennsylvania, Bolton v. King, 105 Pa. St. 78.

5 Bigelow v. Norris, 139 Mass. 12, 29 N. . 61.

6 Christie v. Bridgman, 51 N. J. Eq. 331, 25 Atl. 939, 30 Atl. 429.

7 Dewey v. Moyer, 72 N. Y. 70.

8 United States. Allen v. Ferguson, 85 U. S. (18 Wall.) 1, 21 L. ed. 854.

Alabama. Dantzler v. Scheuer, -

Ala. -, 82 So. 103.

Illinois. Stern v. Smith, 225 111. 430, 80 N. E. 307.

Indiana. Meech v. Lamon, 103 Ind. 515, 53 Am. Rep. 540, 3 N. E. 159.

Kansas. Needham v. Matthewson, 81 Kan. 340, 26 L. R. A. (N.S.) 274, 105 Pac. 436.

Michigan. Edwards v. Nelson, 51 Mich. 121, 16 N. W. 261; Brewer v. Boynton, 71 Mich. 254, 39 N. W. 49.

Minnesota. Smith v. Stanchfield, 84 Minn. 343, 87 N. W. 917.

Pennsylvania. Bolton v. King, 105 Pa. St. 78.

North Carolina. Riggs v. Roberts, 85 N. Car. 151, 39 Am. Rep. 692.

South Carolina. Ferguson v. Harris,

39 S. Car. 323, 39 Am. St. Rep. 731, 17 S. E. 782.

Vermont. McDougall v. Page, 55 Vt. 187, 45 Am. Rep. 602.

Washington. Coe v. Rosene, 66 Wash. 73, 38 L. R. A. (N.S.) 577, 118 Pac. 881.

"Nothing is sufficient to revive a discharged debt unless the jury are authorized by it to say that there is the expression by the debtor of a clear intention to bind himself to the payment of the debt. Thus, partial payments do not operate as a new promise to pay the residue of the debt. The payment of interest will not revive the liability to pay the principal, nor is the expression of an intention to pay the debt sufficient." Allen ▼. Ferguson, 85 U. S. (18 Wall.) 1, 21 L. ed. 854.

9 Bolton v. King, 105 Pa. St. 78. 10Herrington v. Davitt, 220 N. Y.

162, 1 A. L. R. 1700, 115 N. E. 476.

11 Sundling v. Willey, 19 S. D. 293, 103 N. W. 38.

12 Coe v. Rosene, 66 Wash. 73, 38 L. R. A. (N.S.) 577, 118 Pac. 881.

13 Moore v. Trounstine, 126 Ga. 116, 54 S. E. 810.

14 Holt v. Akarman, 84 N. J. L. 871, 86 Atl. 408.

It is often said that such a promise must be unconditional.19 This, however, means only that the creditor who wishes to enforce a conditional promise must show that the condition has been performed, and that the new promise can not be enforced if the condition has not been performed.20 On the other hand, if the condition annexed to such promise is fulfilled, the promise is enforceable.21 If the debtor promises to pay "when he is able." such promise is enforceable on proof that he is able.22 If a bankrupt promises to pay certain notes when they mature if. he is able, and if not able then to pay them when he is able, such promise is valid, but the bankrupt is not bound to renew such notes as they fall due.23

15 Allen v. Ferguson, 86 U. S. (18 Wall.) 1, 21 L. ed. 854.

16 Faison v. Bowden, 72 N. Car. 405.

17 Bigelow v. Norris, 141 Mass. 14, 6 N. E. 88.

18 Dennan v. Gould, 141 Mass. 16, 6 N. E. 222.

19 Egbert v. McMichael, 48 Ky. (0 B. Mon.) 44; Bigelow v. Norris, 139 Mass. 12, 29 N. E. 61; Brown v. Collier, 27 Tenn. (8 Humph.) 510.

20 Alabama. Kraus v. Torry, 146 Ala. 548, 40 So. 956; Dantzler v. Scheuer, - Ala. -, 82 So. 103.

Indiana. Meech v. Lamon, 103 Ind. 515, 53 Am. Rep. 540, 3 N. E. 159.

Massachusetts. Elwell v. Cumner, 136 Mass. 102; Nathan v. Leland, 193 Mass. 576, 79 N. E. 793.

Minnesota. Smith v. Stanchfield, 84 Minn. 843, 87 N. W. 917.

New York. Lawrence v. Harrington, 122 N. Y. 408, 25 N. E. 406.

21 Alabama. Griel v. Solomon, 82 Ala. 85, 60 Am. Rep. 733, 2 So. 322.

Iowa. Knapp v. Hoyt, 57 la. 591, 10 N. W. 925.

Kentucky. Eckler v. Galbraith, 75 Ky. (12 Bush.) 71.

Massachusetts. Way v. Sperry, 60 Mass. (6 Cash.) 238.

Vermont. Sherman v. Hobart, 26 Vt. 60.

22 Torry v. Krauss, 149 Ala. 200, 43 So. 184; Taylor v. Nixon, 36 Tenn. (4 Sneed) 352.

See also, Dantzler v. Scheuer, - Ala. -, 82 So. 103.

23 Dantzler v. Scheuer, - Ala. -. 82 So. 103.

An oral promise to pay such debt is sufficient in the absence of statute,24 though if the statute specifically requires a written con-tract in such cases such contract can not be enforced if not in writing.25