
    GENERAL COURT,
    OCTOBER TERM, 1800.
    Bullen’s Adm’r. vs. Ridgely’s Ex’r.
    The act oflimi-rations heed not be pleaded to eacli distinct count in a declaration containing several counts upon se; veral distinct causes of dbtiou
    AssuMPsib. The declaration contained sundry counts for the value of a horse delivered by the plaintiff’s intestate to the defendant’s testator, which he promised to return, and which he did not, Scat
    
    The defendant pleaded non assúmpsit, non assump-sit infra tres annos, and actio non accrevit infra ires annoSi The plaintiff demurred specially to the 2d and 3d picas; and in the demurrer to the 2d plea, assigned for causes the following: “Because, in some counts in the declaration, to wit, the 1st and ád, the cause of action does not accrue on the promise and assumpsit of the testator, but on matter subsequent; therefore the said plea, going to the. whole declaration, is immaterial and vicious, as to the counts aforen Said; and that the said plea is incertain and wants form.”
    The causes assigned in the demurrer to the 3d plea are as follow: “That tiie said plea is incerlain in this, that the declaration consists of many counts, and of many distinct causes of action, and the said plea is pleaded to the cause of action in the declaration, without naming and specifying to which cause, of action the said plea is-to apply; and wants form,” &c.
    
      Shaaff, for the plaintiff, contended,
    that the causes of action accrued subsequent to the promises, and that actio non accrevit was the proper plea, and should go to each distinct count; if not, upon a special demurrer, the plea is bad. He produced a number of forms from the books to shew, that where there were several counts, the plea was to each distinct count, or the several causes of action in the declaration.
    
    
      Ridgely and Hollingsworth, for the defendant.
   The GeNeeai, Cotjut overruled the demurrers, and gave judgment for the defendant.  