"The account is due, and I supposed it had been paid, but did not know of its being ever paid," is no new promise; Clementson v. Williams, 8 Cra. (U. S.) 72, 3 L. Ed. 491.
If the debtor admits that the debt is due, but intimates his purpose to avail himself of the bar of the statute, the .acknowledg ment is insufficient ; Sanford v. Clark, 29 Conn. 457. So if he says the will pay if he owes, but denies that he owes ; Perley v. Lit tle, 3 Greenl. (Me.) 97; Bangs v. Hall, 2 Pick. (Mass.) 368, 13 Am. Dec. 437; Meyer v. Andrews, 70 Tex. 327, 7 S. W. 814. So if he states his inability to Pay ; Barnard v. Bartholomew, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 291; Man ning v. Wheeler, 13 N. H. 486. So if he ad mits the claim to have been once due, but claims that it is paid by an account against the claimant ; Marshall v. Dalliber, 5 Conn. 480 ; Belknap v. Gleason, 11 Conn. 160, 27 Am. Dec. 721.
"I am too unwell to settle now ; when I am better, I will settle your account ;" held insufficient ; Aylett's Di x'r v. Robinson, 9 Leigh (Va.) 45. So of an offer to pay a part in order to get the claim out of the hands of the creditor ; Cohen v. Aubin, 2 Bailey (S. C.) 283; and of an admission that the account is right ; Ditto v. Ditto's Adm'rs, 4 Dana (Ky.) 505. An indorscilent on a note dated the day before it would outlaw, that "the within note shall not be outlawed," written and signer'. by the party thereto, will take it out of tke statute ; In re Estate of King, 94 Mich. 411, 54 N. W. 178 ; Bacchus v. Peters, 85 Tenn. 678, 4 S. W. 833. Letters which merely acknowledge an indebtedness, but do not refer to any particular account, or mention the amount of the debt, and which are not written to serve as an ac-' knowledgment, are not sufficient ; Allen v. Hillman, 69 Miss. 225, 13 South. 871.
If the new promise is subject to conditions or qualifications, is indefinite as to time or amount, or as to the debt referred to, or in any other way limited or contingent, the plaintiff will be held to bring himself strict ly within the terms of the promise, and to show that the condition has been performed, or the contingency happened, and that he is not excluded by any limitation, qualification, or uncertainty ; Wetzell v. Bussard, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 309, 6 L. Ed. 481; Sands v. Gelston, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 511; 3 Hare 299 ; Shown v. Hawkins, 85 Tenn. 214, 2 S. W. 34. If the promise be to pay when able, the ability must be proved by the plaintiff ; 4 Esp. 36 ; Manning v. Wheeler, 13 N. H. 486 ;
Sherman v. Wakeman, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 254. But see Cummings v. Gassett, 19 Vt. 308 ; Sennott v. Horner, 30 III. 429; Cocks v. Weeks, 7 Hill (N. Y.) 45; Bulloch v. Smith, 15 Ga. 395 ; Shown v. Hawkins, 85 Tenn. 214, 2 S. W. 34; Lange v. Caruthers, 70 Tex. 718, 8 S. W. 604. So if it be to pay as soon as convenient, the convenience must be proved ; 2 Cr. & M.; or, "if E will say that I have had the timber," the condition must be com plied with ; Robbins v. Otis, 1 Plck. (Mass.) 370.
And if there be a promise to pay in specific articles, the plaintiff must show that he of fered to accept them ; v. Barnard, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 407. The vote of a town to appoint a committee to "settle the dispute" was held to be a conditional promise, requir ing, to give it force as against the statute, proof that the committee reported something due ; Fiske v. Inhabitants of Needham, 11 Mass. 452. If the original promise be condi tional, and the new promise absolute, the latter will not alter the former; Lonsdale v. Brown, 3 Wash. C. C. 404, Fed. Cas. No. 8,492. But where the promise by A was to pay if the debtor could not prove that B had paid it, it was held that the onus was upon A to prove that B had paid it ; Richmond v. Fugua, 33 N. C. 445. The offer must be ac cepted altogether or rejected altogether. The liability of the defendant is to be tried by the test he has himself prescribed ; Dean v. Pitts, 10 Johns. (N. Y.) 35., It must appear clearly that the promise is •made with reference to the particular demand in suit ; Moore v. Bank, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 86, 8 L. Ed. 329; Martin v. Broach, 6 Ga. 21, 50 Am. Dec. 306 ; Arey v. Stephenson, 33 N. C. 86 ; though a general admission would seem to be sufficient, unless the defendant show that there were other demands between the parties ; Gibson v. Grosvenor, 4 Gray (Mass.) 606; Huff v. Richardson, 19 Pa. 388; Buckingham v. Smith, 23 Conn. 453. If the admission be broad enough to cover the debt in suit, according to some authorities, the plaintiff can prove the amount really due aliumde. But the authorities are not at one on this point; 12 C. & P. 104; Eastman v. Walker, 6 N. H. 367; Barnard v. Wyllis, 22 Pick. (Mass.) 291; Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. (U. S.) 351, 7 L. Ed. 174; Sutton v. Burruss, 9 Leigh (Va.) 381, 33 Am. Dec. 246; Shitler v. Bremer, 23 Pa. 413.