Kojro, supra, is inapplicable because, first, it did not consider the applicability of Section 8108, and second, because it did not exclude the possibility of a stated promise to pay, but merely declared that a promise to pay may be implied from an admission or acknowledgment of a subsisting debt and in such instance the claim would not be barred even though the applicable statute of limitations had run prior to the admission or acknowledgment. In Burton v. Wharton, 4 Harr. 296 (Del.Super. 1845), this Court held that a statement by a debtor that he was willing to pay the principal indebtedness was an acknowledgment which tolled the statute of limitations. The object of this statute was to establish a six year limitation for bringing action on a written instrument which acknowledges an existing indebtedness.

The promise of repayment is in such cases. In Burton v. Wharton, 4 Har. 296, 298, it was said of the action of assumpsit for money had and received, in a suit to recover from a defaulting vendor part of the purchase price paid: "The principle of this action is that it is not according to equity and good conscience that the defendant shall retain the money." The court in Guthrie v. Hyatt, 1 Har. 446, said: