
    SIMPSON v. SIMPSON’S EXECUTOR.
    Court of Common Pleas. Kent.
    May, 1818.
    
      Clayton’s Notebook, 60.
    
    
      Ridgely, for defendant,
    referred to 1 Del.Laws 231, 527, 2 Del. Laws 1032.* 
    
    
      Hall, for plaintiff,
    cited 2 Saund. 117c, Chit.Pl. 204, 342.
    
      
       Footnote by Clayton, “For defendant: Fisher’s Executor v. Duncan and Turnbull, 1 Hen. & Munf. 563, 1 Hen. & Munf. 401, Gould’s Esp. Ev. 537. Semble, in Delaware the Statute of Frauds too would enter into the consideration.”
    
   Per Curiam.

The question whether a promise by an executor, when, the debt was barred before the testator’s death, is sufficient to avoid a plea of the Act of Limitations is one of great magnitude and difficulty, but not necessary to be determined in this cause, because the debt was not barred when the promise was made, and the promise of the executor probably induced the plaintiff to remain quiet. We therefore think the case taken out of the Act by the promise.  