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.
Whether the new promise creates a new liability supported by the original liability as a consideration, or whether the new promise merely waives the bar of the discharge and leaves the original liability in force is a question upon which there is a real conflict of authority and a greater apparent conflict. Some authorities hold that the liability is on the new promise.1 While, in some cases, this means nothing more than that the creditor may sue on the new promise if he so elects, in other cases it means that he can not sue on the original promise;2 and that, if he does so, his replication, setting up the new promise, to the defendant's plea, setting up his discharge in bankruptcy, will be subject to demurrer.3 Other authorities treat the liability as being on the original claim.4 No good reason appears for refusing to hold that either theory of the nature of the debtor's liability may be entertained. Many of the courts have assumed, however, that one or the other of these theories must be entertained to the exclusion of the alternative. A number of courts have, however, held that if all the facts appear on the record, the rights of the parties are the same on whichever theory of the case the plaintiff is proceeding and that the creditor may, accordingly, recover on either theory.5
24 Georgia. Roes v. Jordan, 62 6a. 298.
Illinois. Marshall v. Tracy, 74 III. 370.
Michigan. Craig v. Seitz, 63 Mich. 727, 30 N. W. 347.
Minnesota. Smith v. Stanchfield, 84 Minn. 343, 87 N. W. 917.
New Jersey. Holt v. Akarman, 84 N. J. L. 371, 86 Atl 408.
North Carolina. Henley v. Lanier, 75 N. Car. 172,
Vermont. Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Flint, 17 Vt. 508, 44 Am. Dec. 351.
25 Jacobs v. Carpenter, 161 Mass. 16, 36 N.E. 676; Nathan v. Leland, 193 Mass. 576, 79 N. E. 793; Farmers' & Mechanics' Bank v. Flint, 17 Vt. 508, 44 Am. Dec 351.
1 England. Trueman v. Fenton, 2 Cowp. 544.
California. Chabot v. Tucker, 39 Cal. 434.
Indiana. Post v. Losey, 111 Ind. 74, 60 Am. Rep. 677, 12 N. E. 121.
Kentucky. Egbert v. McMichael, 48 Ky. (9 B. Bon.) 44; Canon v. Osborne, 49 Ky. (10 B. Mon.) 155.
North Carolina. Fraley v. Kelly, 88 N. Car. 227, 43 Am. Rep. 743.
Pennsylvania. In re Field, 2 Rawle (Pa.) 351, 21 Am. Dec 454; Hobough v. Murphy, 114 Pa. St. 358.
2 Graham v. Hunt, 47 Ky. (8 B. Mon.) 7.
3 Graham v. Hunt, 47 Ky. (8 B. Mon.) 7.
4 Arkansas. Nowland v. Lanagan, 45 Ark. 108.
Illinois. Classen v. Schoenemann, 80 111. 304.
New Hampshire. Badger v. Gilmore, 33 N. H. 361, 66 Am. Dec 729.
New York. Duaenbury v. Hoyt, 58 N. Y. 521, 13 Am. Rep. 543; Herring-ton v. Davitt, 220 N. Y. 162, 1 A. L. R. 1700, 115 N. E. 476.
Ohio. Turner v. Chrisman, 20 Ohio 332.