of bill of exchange, has lien on property of drawer in his hands to quære, as to right of acceptor of bill drawn by bankrupt, 62, note. for what it lies, 72. between partners, 72. tenants in common, 73. what must be alleged in action of, between co-tenants, 73, note 2. assumpsit lies in place of, when, 74. instances, 74. proceeding to reopen, barred, 141, note. between partners, equity will not direct when party guilty of gross entry of credit on, within statutory period, disavowed by defendant, settlement of, and striking a balance, 211, note 3. general payment on, when not sufficient to remove statute bar, 276, entry of credit in, by defendant, effect of, 275, note. see Quynn v. Carroll, 275, note. ACKNOWLEDGMENT, historical review of law relating to, 167. of debt, rules relating to, 165-166. reasons for these judicial exceptions, 165. must be by the proper person, 166. must be made with the requisite formalities, 166. must be distinct and unequivocal, 166, note 1. must not repel inference of promise, 166, note 1, 187. 992 INDEX. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - continued. the words "it is a just debt" are not sufficient as, 166, note 1. "prove by A. that I had the timber and I will pay," effect of, 166, note 1. to a stranger not sufficient, 167, note. fluctuation in law relating to, 167. former theory relating to, 168. illustrations of old theory, 168, note 1. true theory on which founded, 173–179. present theory, 179. unqualified, raises implied promise to pay, 172-173, note. illustrations, 172, note 1, 175. apply only to assumpsit, 173. illustrations, 175. conditional, is sufficient, 173, note. quality of, is for court, 174, note. question whether made or not, for jury, 174, note. of tort does not revive right of action, 176. see Galligher v. Hollingsworth, 176, note. see Short v. McCarthy, 176, note. see Whitehead v. Howard, 176, note. see Oothout v. Thompson, 176, note. crucial test as to, 178. see A'Court v. Cross, 178. see Bell v. Morrison, 179, note. elements requisite to make efficacious, 179-206. naked, not sufficient, 185, note. not to plead statute, statute runs on from date of, 189, note. see Lance v. Parker, 190, note. need not be entirely by words, 190, note 1. payment of money into court does not amount to, 191, note. see Long v. Grenville, 191, note. of debt, but claim that it is void, effect of, 191, note. see Tanner v. Smart, 191, note. claim that debt has been paid, when it has not, effect of, 190, note, 213. see Beale v. Nind, 190, note. see Marshall v. Dalliber, 191, note, 213, note. of debt, but claim that statute has run on, effect of, 190, note. see Hellings v. Shaw, 190, note. what, sufficient, 180, note 1, 182, 183, note 4, 184, notes 1 and 2. must be consistent with promise, and evince intention to pay, 179, note 1, 180, note 1. illustrations, 180, note, 182. offer of compromise not, 180, note. qualified, must be accepted, 180, note. conditional, subject to conditions, 180, note, 182-183. i 2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT — continued. as to sufficiency of, see Miller v. Baschore, 182, three questions arise as to, 181. exact amount need not be known, 183, 193. written, instances of sufficient, 183, note 1. see Webb v. Carter, 183, note. note. general direction in will does not amount to, 187, note. amount of debt need not be known, 192, note, 193, note. that signature to note is genuine and that it was never paid, but claim see Rowecroft v. Lomas, 192, note. qualified, effect of, 192, note. see Hellings . Shaw, 192, note. see Scull v. Wallace, 192, note. of existing debt, when sufficient, 193, note 1, 194, note 1. hope to pay, is when, 193, note. desire to pay, not, 193, note. promise to arrange a debt not sufficient, 197, note. ambiguous, may be sufficient, when, 198, note. whether relates to particular debt, for jury, 198, note. essentials of, 195, note, 198, note. must be before action is brought, 196, note. see Bateman v. Pindar, 196, note. before or after statute has run, no distinction in effect of, 196, note. species of proof required, to apply acknowledgment to a particular instances where such proof was insufficient, 203. see Fearn v. Lewis, 203. presumption as to what debt it relates to in certain cases, 196, note, rule when part of a debt is barred, and part not, 196, note, 200, 201, note. see Hancock v. Bliss, 205, note. general, where there are several debts, effect of, 195–199. see Buckingham v. Smith, 198, 199. see Cook v. Martin, 200, where general acknowledgment is held see note 1, page 198. amount to be settled by arbitration, 197, note. question for jury, when, 200, note, 204. see Whitney v. Bigelow, 200, note. see Lloyd v. Maund, 200, note. see Frost v. Benough, 201, note. what will rebut inference of promise to pay, 206-208 and note. |