
    Francis Bloodgood and others, appellants, against Oliver Kane and James Kane,
    
    In chancery, a pure plea of the statute of limitations, in answer to a bill charging circumstances to take the case out of the statute, is no bar, unless it be supported by an answer, denying or destroying the force of those circumstances.
    Appeal from the court of chancery. This cause, with its decision in the court below, is reported in 7 John. Oh. Bep. 90 to 136. The appeal was from that part of the ‘^chancellor’s decree which overruled the plea of the statute of limitations, interposed by the appellants, as a bar to the bill of the respondents for the dividends or profits on share No. 41, prior to the 1st of July, 1815. This part of the case below was discussed by chancellor Kent, in 7 John. Oh. Bep. 129 to 136 ; which discussion was now furnished to this court as his reasons in support of that part of the decree appealed from.
    The cause was argued here, by
    
      Jas. Lynch and H. Bhecker, for the appellants, and
    
      J. V. Henry, for the respondents.
    
      
      
         This case was decided at Albany, December, 1825.
    
   Sutherland, J., and Golden, Senator,

delivered opinions in support of the decree in the court below, in which this court concurred, excepting Crary and Wooster, Senators. So

The decree was affirmed. 
      
       See Waterman’s American Chancery Digest, v)L 2, tit. Limitations, Statute of.
      
     