a time when the legal nature of an infant's contract had not yet been clearly formulated. If there are surrounding circumstances which, taken in connection with the payment, justify the inference of a promise implied in fact to pay the whole, it is probable that the original liability would be held to have been ratified.49 § 154. Ratification of an infant's contract may be conditional or partial. A ratification may be conditional and, if so, on the happening of the condition, but not before, a liability will arise.50 It is also possible to ratify part of a unilateral liability incurred in infancy without ratifying the whole obligation; 51 but where a contract involves mutual obligations, the former infant cannot by partial ratification bind the other party to accept partial performance in return for all or part of the performance 1 Pick. 202; Whitney v. Dutch, 14 Miss. 457; Baker v. Kennett, 54 Mo. 82; Hale v. Gerrish, 8 N. H. 374; Robbons v. Eaton, 10 N. H. 561; Goodsell v. Myers, 3 Wend. 479; International Text Book Co. v. Connelly, 205 N. Y. 188, 99 N. E. 722, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1115; Hurely v. Margaritz, 3 Pa. St. 428; Rapid Transit Land Co. v. Sanford (Tex. Civ. App.), 24 S. W. 587; Hatch v. Hatch's Estate, 60 Vt. 160, 13 Atl. 791. See also Healy v. Kellogg, 145 N. Y. S. 943. 49 See American Mortgage Co. v. Wright, 101 Ala. 658, 14 So. 399; Philpot v. Sandwich Mfg. Co., 18 Neb. 54, 24 N. W. 428; Parsons v. Teller, 111 N. Y. App. Div. 637, 97 N. Y. Supp. 808 (but see the reversal of this decision, on changed findings of fact in 188 N. Y. 318, 80 N. E. 930); Little v. Duncan, 9 Rich. (S. C.) 55, 64 Am. Dec. 760. By statute in Missouri a part payment is an effective ratification. See infra, § 239, also Korner v. Wilkinson, 96 Mo. App. 510, 70 S. W. 509; Snyder v. Gericke, 101 Mo. App. 647, 74 S. W. 377. Where a payment was made after her majority by an infant, but it ap peared to be made as a matter of bounty, not in pursuance of an obligation, it was rightly held no ratification in Parsons v. Teller, 188 N. Y. 318, 80 N. E. 930. 50 Kendrick v. Neisz, 17 Colo. 506, 30 Pac. 245; Procter v. Sears, 4 Allen, 95; Thompson v. Lay, 4 Pick. 48, 16 Am. Dec. 325. See also Minock v. Shortridge, 21 Mich. 304; Peacock v. Binder, 57 N. J. L. 374, 31 Atl. 215; Everson v. Carpenter, 17 Wend. 419; Chandler v. Glover, 32 Pa. 509; Bobo v. Hansell, 2 Bailey (S. C.), 114. 51 Edgerly v. Shaw, 25 N. H. 514, 57 Am. Dec. 349. The court said further: "A new promise may be qualified in various ways. It may bind the promisor to pay the debt at a different time or place from those originally stipulated. It may be a promise to pay, not in money, but in specific articles, or in personal services. These cases cannot be distinguished, in principle, from that last stated. They are new contracts, not ratifications of the old ones." See also Tolar v. Marion County Lumber Co., 93 S. Car. 274, 75 S. E. 545. 78 which the latter undertook to give.52 A promise or admission of liability made by the former infant to a third person creates no liability. 53 § 155. Ratification of a contract made during insanity. The effect of a lunatic's bargain is the subject of considerable difference of judicial opinion, and this question has been elsewhere considered; 54 but in all jurisdictions except the few which may hold the contract of an insane person absolutely void, a subsequent promise made after the lunatic has become sane is an effective ratification.55 § 156. Promise by a widow to perform an agreement made during coverture. At common law a married woman could not bind herself by contract.56 Any attempt to do so was absolutely void of legal effect. It was held, however, in England while the doctrine of moral consideration was still accepted that a new promise by the married woman, after the death of her husband, to perform an agreement which she entered into during coverture was binding.57 At the present day it might seem that this question had become unimportant on account of the removal of the disability of married woman to contract, but it is still law in many jurisdictions that married women cannot enter into certain contracts, especially that they cannot bind themselves as sureties for their husbands.58 Therefore, the question of the effect of a new promise after discoverture still arises. In a few jurisdictions it is held that a subsequent promise of the married woman is binding; 59 but the great weight 52 Biederman v. O'Conner, 117 Ill. 493, 7 N. E. 463, 57 Am. Rep. 876; Lowry v. Drake, 1 Dana, 46; State v. New Orleans, 105 La. 768, 30 So. 97; Robinson v. Berry, 93 Me. 320, 45 Atl. 34; Philpot v. Sandwich Mfg. Co., 18 Neb. 54, 24 N. W. 428; Pecararo v. Pecararo, 84 N. Y. S. 581; Morrill v. Aden, 19 Vt. 505. 53 Mayer v. McLure, 36 Miss. 389, 72 Am. Dec. 190; Bigelow v. Grannis, 2 Hill, 120; Chandler v. Glover, 32 Pa. 54 See infra, §§ 249 et seq. 56 See infra, § 265. 57 Lee v. Muggeridge, 5 Taunt. 36 [1813]. 58 See infra, § 269. 59 Walker v. Arkansas Nat. Bank, 256 Fed. 1 (C. C. A.); Lafitte v. Delogny, 33 La. Ann. 659; Brownson v. of authority denies validity to such a promise.60 If, however, the original agreement bound the married woman's separate estate in equity, a subsequent promise by her after discoverture is held enforceable at law by many courts, most if not all of which would hold the later promise ineffectual had the original agreement been void.61 The correctness of this distinction must depend upon the general question, previously discussed,62 of the validity of a preëxisting obligation to support a new promise. part хо 157. Promise by a discharged surety. In some jurisdictions notice of acceptance of a guaranty is required.63 In such jurisdictions, if notice is not given, the guarantor, nevertheless, becomes liable, if he promises, in spite of failure to give him notice, to fulfil his guaranty.64 So a Weeks, 47 La. Ann. 1042, 17 So. 489; Wilson v. Burr, 25 Wend. * 386; Goulding v. Davidson, 26 N. Y. 604; Hemphill v. McClimans, 24 Pa. 367; Leonard v. Duffin, 94 Pa. 218; Brooks v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 125 Pa. 394, 17 Atl. 418; Holden v. Banes, 140 Pa. 63, 21 Atl. 239; Rathfon v. Locher, 215 Pa. 571, 64 Atl. 790. 60 Watson v. Dunlap, 2 Cranch C. C. 14; Ezell v. King, 93 Ala. 470, 9 So. 534; Thompson v. Hudgins, 116 Ala. 93, 22 So. 632; Horton v. Hill, 138 Ala. 625, 36 So. 465; Waters v. Bean, 15 Ga. 358; Howard v. Simpkins, 70 Ga. 322; Thompson v. Minnich, 227 Ill. 430, 81 N. E. 336; Maher v. Martin, 43 Ind. 314; Putnam v. Tennyson, 50 Ind. 456; Long v. Brown, 66 Ind. 160; Austin v. Davis, 128 Ind. 472, 26 N. E. 890, 12 L. R. A. 120; Holloway's Assignee v. Rudy, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1406, 60 S. W. Rep. 650, 53 L. R. A. 353; Gilbert v. Brown, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 1248, 97 S. W. 40; Lyell v. Walbach, 113 Md. 574, 77 Atl. 1111, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 741; Porterfield v. Butler, 47 Miss. 165, 12 Am. Rep. 329; Musick v. Dodson, 76 Mo. 624, 43 Am. Rep. 780; Bragg v. Israel, 86 Mo. App. 338; Kent v. Rand, 64 N. H. 45, 5 Atl. 760; Condon v. Barr, 49 N. J. L. 53, 6 Atl. 614; Long v. Rankin, 108 N. C. 333, 12 S. E. 987; Wilcox v. Arnold, 116 N. C. 708, 21 S. E. 434; Hayward v. Barker, 52 Vt. 429, 36 Am. Rep. 762; Valentine v. Bell, 66 Vt. 280, 29 Atl. 251; Dixie v. Worthy, 11 U. C. Q. B. 328. See also Parker v. Cowan, 1 Heisk. 518. Still more clearly a promise by a widow to pay a debt of her deceased husband is unenforceable. Royer v. Kelly, 174 Cal. 70, 161 Pac. 1148. 61 Doss v. Peterson, 82 Ala. 253, 2 So. 644; Viser v. Bertrand, 14 Ark. 267; Craft v. Rolland, 37 Conn. 491; Cleland v. Low, 32 Ga. 458; Condon v. Barr, 49 N. J. L. 53, 6 Atl. 614; Felton v. Reid, 7 Jones L. 269; Long v. Rankin, 108 N. C. 333, 12 S. E. 987; Wilcox v. Arnold, 116 N. C. 708, 21 S. E. 434; Hubbard v. Bugbee, 55 Vt. 506, 45 Am. Rep. 637, 58 Vt. 172, 2 Atl. 594; Sherwin v. Sanders, 59 Vt. 499, 9 Atl. 239, 59 Am. Rep. 750. 62 Supra, § 143. 63 See supra, § 69. 64 Gamage v. Hutchins, 23 Me. 565; Signourney v. Wetherell, 6 Met. 553; Ashford v. Robinson, 8 Ired. L. 114. surety who has been discharged by an agreement made between the principal debtor and the creditor to give time to the principal debtor, will revive his own liability if he makes a new promise to perform his obligation with knowledge of the creditor's agreement with the principal debtor.65 Similarly the promise of a party secondarily liable on a bill or note to pay the same in spite of having been discharged by lack of diligence on the part of the holder in making presentment to a party primarily liable, or in giving notice of his default, operates in the same way as if presentment and notice had been originally waived.66 And it has been held that such a 65 Stevens v. Lynch, 12 East. 38; Mayhew v. Crickett, 2 Swanston, 185, 192 (per Eldon); Smith v. Winter, 4 M. & W. 454; Ellis v. Bibb, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 63, 70; First Natl. Bank v. Whitman, 66 Ill. 331; Williams v. Boyd, 75 Ind. 286; Matchett v. Winona Assembly, 185 Ind. 128, 113 N. E. 1; Crutcher v. Trabu, 5 Dana, 80; Young v. New Farmers' Bank's Trustee, 102 Ky. 257, 43 S. W. 473; Bishop v. Eaton, 161 Mass. 496, 37 N. E. 665, 42 Am. St. Rep. 437; Porter v. Hodenpuyl, 9 Mich. 11; Hooper v. Pike, 70 Minn. 84, 72 N. W. 829, 68 Am. Rep. St. 512; Merrimack Bank v. Brown, 12 N. H. 320; Rochester Bank v. Chick, 64 N. H. 410, 13 Atl. 872; Bramble v. Ward, 40 Oh. St. 267; Dey v. Martin, 78 Va. 1; Parsons v. Harrold, 46 W. Va. 122, 32 S. E. 1002; Fay v. Tower, 58 Wis. 286, 16 N. W. 558. But see contra, Walters v. Swallow, 6 Whart. 446. And in Cruse v. Gau (Tex. Civ. App.), 193 S. W. 405, the court held that liability could not be revived unless the creditor acted on the surety's promise and that, therefore, a letter of the surety mailed but never received could have no effect. 66 Uniform Neg. Inst. Law, Sec. 109, infra, § 1186; Rogers v. Stephens, 2 T. R. 713; Hopes v. Alder, 6 East, 16 n.; Lundie v. Robertson, 7 East, 231; Rabey v. Gilbert, 6 H. & N. 536; Cordery v. Colvin, 14 C. B. (N. S.) 374; Killby v. Rochussen, 18 C. B. (N. S.) 357; Woods v. Dean, 3 B. & S. 101; Bartholomew v. Hill, 5 L. T. Rep. (N. S.) 756; Reynolds v. Douglass, 12 Pet. 497, 505, 9 L. Ed. 1171; Sigerson v. Mathews, 20 How. 496, 15 L. Ed. 989; Yeager v. Farwell, 13 Wall. 6, 20 L. Ed. 476; Hazard v. White, 26 Ark. 155; Leonard v. Hastings, 9 Cal. 236; Breed v. Hillhouse, 7 Conn. 523; Hayes v. Werner, 45 Conn. 246; Tobey v. Berly, 26 Ill. 426; Smith v. Curlee, 59 Ill. 221; First Nat'l Bank v. Day, 52 Iowa, 680, 3 N. W. 728; Higgins v. Morrison's Ex'r, 4 Dana, 100 (but see Lawrence v. Ralston, 3 Bibb, 102); Hart p: Long, 1 Rob. (La.) 83; Turnbull v. Maddux, 68 Md. 579; Schwartz v. Wilmer, 90 Md. 136, 44 Atl. 1059; Thomas v. Mayo, 56 Me. 40 (in Maine by statute the promise must be in writing. Parshley v. Heath, 69 Me. 90, 31 Am. Rep. 246); Harrison v. Bailey, 99 Mass. 620, 97 Am. Dec. 63; Rindge » Kimball, 124 Mass. 209; Hobbs v. Straine, 149 Mass. 212, 21 N. E. 365; Parsons v. Dickinson, 23 Mich. 56; State Bank v. McCabe, 135 Mich. 479, 98 N. W. 20; Robbins v. Pinckard, 13 Miss. 51; Salisbury v. Renick, 44 Mo. 554; Long v. Dismer, 71 Mo. 452; Faulkner v. Faulkner, 73 Mo. 327, 337; Rogers v. Hackett, 21 N. H. 100; Richardson v. Kulp, 81 N. J. L. 123, 78 Atl. 1062; new promise made to the holder of the bill or note enures to the benefit of a subsequent holder; 67 and likewise enures to the benefit of a prior holder who has taken up the instrument.68 A promise made to one who is not a holder or party to the instrument is ineffectual; " and so is a promise made in ignorance of the failure to exercise due diligence.70 But it is not invalidated by ignorance of the legal effect of the holder's failure to exercise due diligence." The new promise must 69 Barkalow v. Johnson, 1 Harr. 397; Glendening v. Canary, 5 Daly, 489; Meyer v. Hibsher, 47 N. Y. 265; Leary v. Miller, 61 N. Y. 488; Ross v. Hurd, 71 N. Y. 14, 27 Am. Rep. 1; Baer v. Hoffman, 150 N. Y. App. D. 473, 135 N. Y. S. 28; Moore v. Tucker, 3 Ired. L. 347; Johnson v. Arrigoni, 5 Oreg. 485; Smith v. Lownsdale, 6 Oreg. 78; Sherer v. Easton Bank, 33 Pa. 134; Moyer's Appeal, 87 Pa. 129; Burgettstown Nat. Bank v. Nill, 213 Pa. 456, 63 Atl. 186, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1079, 110 Am. St. 554; Hall v. Freeman, 2 N. & McC. 479, 10 Am. Dec. 621; Stone v. Smith, 30 Tex. 138, 94 Am. Dec. 299; Blodgett v. Durgin, 32 Vt. 361; Bundy v. Buzzell, 51 Vt. 128; Thompson v. Curry, 79 W. Va. 771, 91 S. E. 801; Knapp v. Runals, 37 Wis. 135. A contrary decision is the Irish case of Donelly v. Howie, Hayes & Jones, 436, and also Sebree Deposit Bank v, Moreland, 96 Ky. 150, 28 S. W. 153, 29 L. R. A. 305. 67 Gunson v. Metz, 1 B. & C. 193; Rogers v. Hackett, 21 N. H. 100. 68 Potter v. Rayworth, 13 East, 417; Rabey v. Gilbert, 6 H. & N, 536; Kennon v. McRae, 7 Porter, 175. 69 Olendorf v. Swartz, 5 Cal. 480, 63 Am. Dec. 141; Miller v. Hackley, 5 Johns. 375, 4 Am. Dec. 372; Allwood v. Haseldon, 2 Bailey L. 457. 70 Goodall v. Dolley, 1 T. R. 712; Borradaile v. Lowe, 4 Taunt. 93; Thornton v. Wynn, 12 Wheat. 183, 6 L. Ed. 595; Martin v. Winslow, 2 Mas. 241; Kennon v. McRae, 7 Port. 175; Walker v. Rogers, 40 Ill. 279, 89 Am. Dec. 348; Freeman v. O'Brien, 38 Ia. 406; Bank of Tennessee v. Smith, 9 B. Mon. 609; Landrum v. Trowbridge, 2 Met. (Ky.) 281; Blum v. Bidwell, 20 La. Ann. 43; James v. Wade, 21 La. Ann. 548; Byram v. Hunter, 36 Me. 217; Lewis v. Brehme, 33 Md. 412, 3 Am. Rep. 190; Low v. Howard, 10 Cush. 159; Kelley v. Brown, 5 Gray, 108; Parks v. Smith, 155 Mass. 26, 28 N. E. 1044; Newberry v. Trowbridge, 13 Mich. 263; Hamilton v. Winona Lumber Co., 95 Mich. 436, 54 N. W. 903; Farrington v. Brown, 7 N. H. 271; Norris v. Ward, 59 N. H. 487; United States Bank v. Southard, 2 Harr. 473; Tebbetts v. Dowd, 23 Wend. 379; Hunter v. Hook, 64 Barb. 468; Lilly v. Petteway, 73 N. C. 358; Loose v. Loose, 36 Pa. 538; Fotheringham v. Price, 1 Bay, 291, 1 Am. Dec. 618; Golladay v. Union Bank, 2 Head, 57; Ford v. Dallam, 3 Cold. 67; Commercial Bank v. Clark, 28 Vt. 325. 71 Bilbie v. Lumley, 2 East, 469; Givens v. Merchants' Natl. Bank, 85 Ill. 442; Hughes v. Bowen, 15 Iowa, 446; Cheshire v. Taylor, 29 Iowa, 492; Davis v. Gowen, 17 Me. 387; Beck v. Thompson, 4 Har. & J. 537; Matthews v. Allen, 16 Gray, 594, 77 Am. Dec. 430; Third Natl. Bank v. Ashworth, 105 Mass. 503; Glidden v. Chamberlin, 167 Mass. 486, 46 N. E. 103, 57 Am. St. Rep. 479; Ladd v. Kenney, 2 N. H. 340, 9 Am. Dec. 77; Edwards v. Tandy, 36 N. H. 540; Tebbetts v. Dowd, 23 Wend. 379; Richter v. Selin, 8 S. & R. |