An unconditional acknowledgment of liability upon the paper after its maturity, made with knowledge of a release, operates as a waiver

Peters, 9 S. & R. 125. See, however, for a partial payment in depreciated paper, Newberry v. Trowbridge, 13 Mich. 263.

2Reinke v. Wright, 93 Wis. 368; Whitaker v. Morrison, Branch, 25.

3 Buckley v. Bentley, 42 Barb. 646; Shaw v..McNeill,.95 N. C. 535.

4 See preceding section.

5 See preceding section. If the knowledge existed, the prima facie case becomes a conclusive and indisputable presumption.

6Hall v. Jones, 32 I1I. 38; Winn v. Levy, 2 How. (Miss.) 902; Grigsby v. Ford, 3 How. (Miss.) 184. But it is said to be merely prima facie proof. Richter v. Selin, 8 S. & R. 425.

7 Sherer v. Easton Bank, 83 Pa. 134. But see note 14 to preceding section.

8 Johnson v. Crane, 16 N. H. 68.

1Bogart v. McClung, 11 Heisk. 105; Leonard v. Gary, 10 Wend. 504; Oglesby v. Stacy, 10 La. Ann. 117 (after suit brought); Parsons v. Dickinson, 23 Mich. 56.

2Staylor v. Ball, 24 Md. 183; Parsons v. Dickinson, 23 Mich. 56.

3Fell v. Dial, 14 S. C. 247. This could be considered, perhaps, as a new promise.

4 Leonard v. Hastings, 9 Cal. 236 (made with knowledge, possibly).

5 See the cases following.

6 Todd v. Neal, 49 Ala. 266. And see Newberry v. Trowbridge, 13 Mich. 263 (wrong).

7 Carter v. Burley, 9 N. H. 558.

8 Union Bank v. Govan, lOSmedes & M. 333.

9 Laporte v. Landry, 5 Mart. (N. S.) 359, 4 Mart. (N. S.) 125. But this is a questionable ruling.

10 Newberry v. Trowbridge, 13 Mich. 263. Or in Confederate money. Tardy v. Boyd, 26 Grat 631.