477, 9 Atl. 4, 59 Am. Rep. 742; Magann

463; Easly v. Eakin, Cooke (Tenn.) 388.

605, 15 Atl. 300, 1 L. R. A. 187: ey & Casualty Co. v. Cutts, 95 Me. 162, 49 Atl. 673.—A.e ble muisamee. Anything in-

351; Com. v. Williams, 9 Metc. (Mass.)

576, 48 Am. Rep. 762.

04, 14 Atl. 302, 6 Am. St. Rep. 95; Spencer’s Case, 3 Coke, 31; Gilmer v. Railway Co., 7 Ala. 572, 58 Am. Rep. 623: Conduitt v.

773, 14 Am. Rep. 640.—Pure debt. In Scotch law. A debt due now and unconditionally is so called. It is thus distinguished from a future debt,—payable at a fixed day in the futnure,—and a contingent debt, which will only become due upon the happening of a certain contingency.—-Simple contract debt.. One where the contract upon which the obligation arises is neither ascertained by matter of record nor yet by deed or special instrument, but by mere oral evidence the most simple of any, or by notes unsealed, which are capable of a more easy proof. and therefore only better than a verbal promise. 2 Bl. Comm. 466.

398; In re Big Run, 137 Pa. 500, 2\. Atl, F11;: McGilvery v. Staples, 81 Me. .101, 16

134, 28 Atl. 1089; Munro y. Alaire, 2 Caines (N. Y.) 326.

216.

608; Allen v. Kirwan, 159 Pa. 612, 28

169.

102. ‘

314, 40 Atl. 825.

712; Cable v. Alvord, 27 Ohio St. 664.

11, 42 Atl. 1087.

650; Appeal of Eliot, 74 Conn. 586, 51

375.