
    Case No. 5,231.
    GARDNER v. LINDO.
    [1 Cranch, C. C. 78.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    March Term, 1802.
    
    
      Mr. Mason, for defendant,
    Mr. Woodward, for plaintiff.
    
      
       [Reported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]
    
    
      
       [Reversed in 1 Cranch (5 U. S.) 343.]
    
   THE COURT

refused to admit the act of limitations to be given in evidence. See [Lindo v. Gardner] 1 Cranch [5 U. S.] 343; [note B., Append.] Id. 402, 405. After verdict for the plaintiff, it was moved, in arrest of judgment, 1st, That debt will (not lie on a promissory note. 2d, That it does not appear that letters of administration were granted to the plaintiff. 3d, That the action is in the debet and detinet.

THE COURT, at a subsequent term, decided that debt would lie on a promissory note, and that the other two objections were too late after verdict.  