Sec 956

The accepting of negotiable paper as yet immature, suspends a debt on account of which it is given; though in case of its dishonor at maturity, the debt is revived in full force.2 Until the security is matured and paid, the debt remains in abeyance;3 when the security is paid this extinguishes the debt, either in full, if the security is for the amount of the debt,1 or pro tanto, when it only covers a part of the debt.2 In several jurisdictions in this country, negotiable paper taken for the price of goods is regarded as unconditional payment, this, however, open to rebuttal by proof of a different understanding.3 - The payment of the security relates back as to time to the giving the receipt, the payment dating from that period.*

Acceptance of immature negotiable paper on account suspends debt and operates as conditional payment.

Eq. 170; Walsh V. Lennon, 98 Ill. 27; Krutsinger V. Brown, 72 Ind. 466. See supra, sec 860, as to discharge of preexisting debt; and as to accord and satisfaction, see infra, sec 1001.

In Lord V. Bigelow, 124 Mass. 185, the plaintiff received two promissory notes under the understanding that he would release a debt due him from the defendant should they be paid at maturity. He procured the discounting of one of these notes, taking it up when protested for non-payment, and the other he pressed to judgment in a friend's name, but received nothing on either. It was held that on tendering the first note and an assignment of the judgment on the other, he was entitled to recover on the debt.

1 Supra, sec 852 et seq.; Cadiz Bank V. Slemmons, 34 Oh. St. 142; Robertson V. Bank, 41 Mich. 356; and see fully infra, sec 1001.

In McKee V. Hamilton, 33 Oh. St. 7, a note in renewal of a partnership debt was given by one partner only, with the same sureties, however, as the original debt. The sureties signed the renewal on the faith of representations that this was necessary for the business of the firm, and on the promise by the partner signing that his copartner would also sign as principal. It was held that as against such sureties this did not operate to extinguish the original debt; and that the sureties, on paying the renewal note, might recover from the partners.

2 Leake, 2d ed. 891; Benj. on Sales, 3d Am. ed. sec 729; Stedman V. Gooch, 1 Esp. 4; Kearslake V. Morgan, 5 T. R. 513; Baker V. Walker, 14 M. & W. 465; Belshaw V. Bush, 11 C. B. 191; Currie V. Misa, L. R. 10 Ex. 163; Worthington ex parte, L. R. 3 C. D. 803; Peter V. Beverly, 10 Pet. 532; Elliott V. Sleeper, 2 N. H. 525; Cham-berlin V. Perkins, 55 N. H. 237; Seymour V. Darrow, 31 Vt. 122; Bill V. Porter, 9 Conn. 23; Ilsley V. Jewett, 2 Met. (Mass.) 168; Van Ostrand V. Reed, 1 Wend. 424; Geller V. Seixas, 4 Abb. Pr. 103; Coler. Sackett, 1 Hill, 516; Hill V. Beebe, 13 N. Y. 556; Jagger Iron Co. V. Walker, 76 N. Y. 521; Hays V. McClurg, 4 Watts, 452; Weekly V. Bell, 9 Watts, 273; Thayer V. Peck, 93 Ill. 357; Smith V. Bettger, 68 Ind. 254; Briggs V. Parsons, 39 Mich. 400; Hughes V. Israel, 73 Mo. 538; Griffith V. Grogan, 12 Cal. 321; Brown V. Olmstead, 50 Cal. 162. As to merger of old debt in new, see supra, sec 684, 860; infra, sec 957, 1040.

3 Sayer V. Wagstaff, 5 BeaV. 415; Okie V. Spencer, 2 Whart. 253; Proctor V. Mather, 3 B. Mon. 353.