28 FEDERAL REPORTER,
A payment by the principal maker of a promissory note, before the statute of limita-
tions has comp eted a bar, will not prevent the completion of the bar as to a co-maker
who is a surety. Knight v. Clements, 45 Ala. 89.·
The payment by the principal, year by year, of the interest on a joint and several
promissory note will prevent the operation of the statute of limitations in favor of a
surety to the note. Schindel v. Gates, 46 Md. 604.
It was said in Thomas v. Brewer, (Iowa,) 7 N. W. Rep. 571, in construing the Ne-
braska statute, that voluntary part payment is an acknowledgment of the indebtedness,
and that an agreement to pay the residue is implied. See Harper v. Fairley, 53 N. Y.
442; Rolfe v. Pillond, (Neb.) 19 N. W. Rep. 970.
Under the Iowa statute, however, partial pa ment, and indorsement thereof on a
promissory note, are insuiflcient to prevent the bar of the statute of limitations, unless
` such indorsement is signed by the party to be charged., Parsons v. Carey, 28 Iowa,
p 431; Harrenconrt v. Merritt, 29 Iowa, 71; Roberts v. Kammon, Id. 128.
Mere part payment of a debt, without words or acm to indicate its character, is not
evidence from which a new promise to take the debt out of the operations of the stat-
ute of limitations may be inferred. Chadwick v. Cornish, (Minn.) 1 N. W. Rep. 55;
Brisbin v. Farmer, 16 Minn. 215, (Gil. 187.)
A payment of interest on a barred note by maker, and indorsement thereon by holder,
gill take it out of the statute of limitations. Yesler v. De Koslowski, (Wash. T.) 8 Pac.
ep. 493.
Where payments are made on an account barred by the statute, it is not necessary
there should also be a written promise to make further payment, to keep the claim
alive. Miner v. Lorman, (Mich.) 26 N. W. Rep. 678. ,
It is said in Corliss v. Grow, (Vt.) 2 Atl. Rep. 389, that part payment ofa debt barred
by the statute of limitations, if made without protest of further liability, is an acknowl-
edgment of such debt at the time of such payment, from which a promise to pay the
balance is implied.
It has been generally held that partial payment stops running of statute, whether
made before. Engmann v. Estate of Immel, (\Vis.) 18 N W. Rep. 182; see Mainzinger v.
Mohr, (Mich.) 3 N. VV. Rep. 183; Eaton v. Gillet, 17 Wis. 435; Williams v. Grid ey, 9
Metc. 482; Sibley v. Lumbert, 30 Me. 253; Newlin v. Duncan, 1 Har. (Del.) 204; 7 Wait,
Act. &. Def. 228, 301, 307; Pars. Cont. 353, or after the statute has debarred the claim,
Wiiichell v. Hicks, 18 N. Y. 558: Pickett v. Leonard, 34 N. Y. 175; Harper v. Fairley,
53 N. Y. 442; Carshore v. Huyck, 6 Barb. 583 ; Graham v. Selover, 59 Barb. 313; First
Nat. Bank of Utica v. Ballou, 49 N. Y. 155; Ilsley v. Jewett, 2 Metc. 168; Ayer v. Hawk-
ins, 19 Vt. 26; VVheelock v. Doolittle, 18 Vt. 440; Emmons v. Overton, 18 B. Mon. 643;
Walton v. Robinson, 5 Ired. 343; Schmucker v. Sibert, 18 Kan. 104; Shannon v. Austin,
67 Mo. 485; Carroll v. Forsyth, 69 Ill. 127. ,
A credit entered upon a note by the holder thereof does not revive a barred note, un-
der the construction of the statute of limitations in Georgia, unless he be authorized
by the defendant in writing to enter such credit. Stone v. Parmalee, 18 Fed. Rep. 280.
(b) Mforccd Part Payment. Enforced part payment will not affect the running of the
statute. Thomas v. Brewer, (Iowa,) T N. W. Rep. 571. .
But a part payment made by sale of acollateral by holder, and indorsed on note, will
remove bar. Sornberger v. Lee, (Neb.) 15 N. W. Rep. 345 ; Wheeler v. Newbould, 16 N.
Y. 392; Joliet Iron Co. v. Scioto F. B. Co., 82 Ill. 548; Whipple v. Blackington, 97
Mass. 476; Haven v. Hathaway, 20 Me. 345.
(c) By Partner, Co-Surety, etc. At common law, a payment made by one of the debt-
ors kept the demand alive as to both, and was equivalent to a new promise by both.
Mainzinger v. Mohr, (Mich.) 3 N. VV Rep. 183: Wyatt v. Hodson, 8 Bing. 309.
The rule is different in most if not all the states. Marienthal v. Mosler, 16 Ohio St.
566; Quimby v. Putnam, 28 Me. 419.
In absence of a statute to the contrary, part payment by one joint debtor will remove
the bar as to all. National Bank of Delavan v. Cotton, (Wis.) 9 N. W. Rep. 926. See
Wiiiclxell v. Hicks, 18 N. Y. 558; Huntington v. Ballou. 2 Lans. 121.
A partial payment upon a promissory note by one of the {pint and several makers
thereof, and indorsed upon it before the note is barred by t estatute of limitations,
and within six years before suit brought, is inoperative to prevent the running of the
statute as to the others. Willoughby v. Irish, (Minn.) 27 N. W. Rep. 379.
Money paid by one of two or more joint debtors on contract, at request of others,
stops running of statute as to all. National Bank of Delavan v. Cotton, (Wis.) 9 N. W.
Rep. 926; Pitts v. Hunt, 6 Lans. 146; Whipple v. Stevens, 2 Fost. (N. H.) 219.
Payment by one of two joint obligors in presence of the other will take out of stat-
ute. Mainzinger v. Mohr, (Mich.) 3 N. W. Rep. 183.
But it has been held that proof of partial payment by one partner, after the dissolu-
tion of the partnership, cannot be introduced to stop the running of the statute of lim-
itations. Cronkhite v. Herrin, 15 Fed. Rep.,888.
And it has also been held that a part payment or new promise by one co-surety will