The  21  Jac.  I,  c.  16,  and  9  Geo.  4,  c.  14,  contain  no  pro-
visions as  to  whom  the  acknowledgment  may  be  made.  Prior
to  these  statutes  an  acknowledgment  to  a  third  person  was
sufficient.  MountstephenY.  Brooke,  3  B.  &  Al.  141.  And
it  would  seem  still  that  an  acknowledgment  need  not  neces-
sarily be  made  to  the  plaintiff  or  his  agent,  but  that  an
acknowledgment  to  third  persons  would,  or  at  aU  events
might,  be  sufficient.  Consider  the  observations  of  Parke,  B.,
in  Forsyth  v.  Bristoioe  (8  Ex.  716),  on  the  3  &  4  Will.  4,
c.  42  {ante,  p.  543),  in  which,  as  in  the  acts  now  being  con-
sidered, there  is  no  provision  as  to  the  person  to  whom  the
acknowledgment  is  to  be  made;  and  see  Fuller  v.  Redman,
26  Bea.  614;  Goate  v.  Goate,  1  H.  &  N.  29.  See,  how-
ever, the  observations  of  Martin,  B.,  and  Bramwell,  B.,
iu  Godwin  v.    Culley,  4  H.  &  N.  379,  380.     As  to  an


Action  of  Account  upon  the  Case,  SfC.  547

acknowledgment  by  one  of  two  or  more  joint  contractors,
see  post,  tit.  "  Paktnership."

Part  payment  of  principal  or  interest  is,  and  was  before  vavt  pnymont.
the  9  Geo.  4,  c.  14,  sufficient  to  talie  the  case  out  of  the
statute  of  James,  though  not  so  expressly  provided,  and  the
act  of  Geo.  4,  does  not  affect  this  rule  (s.  1).  Such  a
payment  is  in  effect  an  acknowledgment.  The  payment
must  be  on  account  of,  and  as  part  of,  the  debt.  Tippets  v.
