
    Martin v. Anderson.
    August, 1827.
    Pleading and Practice — Statute of Limitations — Where Plea Received. — A plea of the Act of Limitations ought not to he received after issue joined on another plea, unless some good reason he assigned why the plea of the Act of Limitations was not sooner tendered.
    This was an action on the case brought in the Superior Court of Caroline County, by Anderson against Martin. The Defendant put in the plea of non assumpsit, on which issue was joined. At a subsequent term, the Defendant moved the Court for leave to file a-plea of the Act of limitations, which the Court refused: whereupon, the Defendant excepted. In the Bill of Exceptions, no reason is assigned why the plea was not sooner tendered. A verdict was rendered for the Plaintiff, and Judgment accordingly. The Defendant appealed.
    Stanard, for the Appellant.
    W. Hay, for the Aopellee.
    
      
      See monographic note on “Limitation of Actions” appended to Herrington v. Harkins, 1 Rob. 591. The principal case is cited in White v. Toncray, 9 Leigh 353.
    
   August 21.

JUDGE CABELL

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case differs from Tomlin’s adm’r v. How’s adm’r, Gilm. 1, in this, that no good reason appears upon the record, why the additional plea of the Act of Limitations was not sooner tendered.

The Judgment should be affirmed. 
      
       The President and Judge Coadter, absent.
     