
    C. Swift v. O. Lanier.
    
      Tried before Mr. Justice Martin at Lancaster — Fall Term. 1832.
    This was an action on a note payable to one A. G. Saffold. Plea, the statute of limitation.
    Where a re. and6 aP-Ft of uwS&wkey;'. mmSÍ?r i“Wer, the date andnouhoaS-Ihnuatíon staw»i
    It appeared that whilst Saffold was the holder of the note, he had given a credit thereon for $885 1826, being the proceeds of notes lodged with him in payment of the note in suit, and received from the fendant in 1822. If the credit was to be considered as given m 1822, the bar was complete, but otherwise if in 1826. The jury under the charge of the Court found for the defendant, and the plaintiff moves a new trial, on the ground that the evidence was sufficient to take the case out of the stat. of limitations.run-
    Clarke for the motion,
    contended that the deposit of the notes in payment, made Saffold the agent of defendant to collect and credit the note in suit. 2 Esp. Rep. 511.
    Williams contra.
    The of the notes in 1822 was the last act of the defendant by which he admitted the note in suit.
   Curia per

Johnson J.

The delivery of the notes to Saffold by the defendant, was the last act by which he recognized the obligation of the. note in suit, and' the jury were correctly instructed that the statute then began to run, and that the bar was complete before suit brought in 1830.

Motion dismissed.

O’Neall J, Concurred.

Harper’ J. Absent.  