1. Siqueira v. Noronha, [1934] A.C 332, the account stated is an account which contains entries on both sides, and in which the parties who have stated the account between them have agreed that the items on one side should be set against the items upon the other side and the balance only should be paid; the items on the smaller side are set off and deemed to be paid by the items on the larger side, and there is a promise for good consideration to pay the balance arising from the fact that the items have been so set off and paid in the way described. In Bullen and Leake's Pleadings (3rd Edn.), at p.52, "An account stated is an admission of a sum of money being due from the defendant to the plaintiff, and may be charged in the above count as a distinct cause of action." Day v. William Hill (Park Lane) LD., [1949] 1 K.B 632. 2. The expression "account stated" has more than one meaning. It sometimes means a claim to payment made by one party and admitted by the other to be correct. An account stated in this sense is on more than an admission of a debt out of court; while it is no doubt cogent evidence against the admitting party, and throws upon him the burden of proving that the debt is not due, it m may, like any other admission, be shown to have been made in error. Where the transaction is of this character, it makes no difference whether the account is said to be " stated" or to be "stated and agrees"; the so- called agreement is without consideration and amounts to no more than an admission. There is, however a second kind of account stated where  the account contains items both sides are adjusted between the parties and a balance struck. The accounts are settled or stated if they are submitted and accepted as correct by the other side to whom the accounts  have been rendered. Such a statement of accounts need not be in writing, nor is it necessary that before the accounts are settled, they should be gone into by the parties and scrutinised and supported by vouchers. It is sufficient if the accounts are accepted and such acceptance may be inferred by conduct of parties. Gordon Woodroffe  and Co. (Madras) Ltd. v. Shaik M.A Majid, AIR 1967 SC 181: 1966 Supp SCR 1.