
    Thomas's Ex'x. vs. Denning, use of Page.
    Appeal from Kent County Court. Action of debt, brought on the 13th of April 1804, on a bond executed by the testator of the defendant, (now appellant,) to the plaintiff Denning, (now appellee,) on the 22d of September 1792, conditioned for the payment of J400 current money on the 1st of January 1796, with intevest from the 1st of January 1793. The defendant pleaded payment. At the trial the defendant produced an account stated between Denning and the defendant’s testator, in which the former was charged with sundry sums of money due to the latter, commencing on the 1st of January 1793, and ending on the 1st of January 1794, and credit given on the 1st of January 1793, of a bond for ¿C300, and interest thereon to the 1st of January 1794; also with a bond in October 1792, with interest from the 1st of January 1793, and payable the 1st of January 1796, for ^400, and also with the interest thereon from the 1st of January 1793, to the 1st of January 1794, leaving a balance due on that account from Thomas to Denning of £73'11 91, to which account was the following, acknowledgment, signed hy Denning (and proyed to be his handwriting,) on the 2d of. September 1794, “I do hereby acknowledge the above and within statement to be just and true, and the several sums of money herein stated tp have been paid by William 'Thomas, l. acknowledge to be right and agreeable to my several orders drawn on him, which said orders were drawn by.me previous to my assigning his bonds, herein credited, tp Mrs. Mat-}} Woodland; and that I have received no money, nor drawn any orders on him on account of the said bonds, since the assignment of said bonds to the said Mary Woodland,’7- Th.e plaintiff then produced the original bond, which had nof been filed in the cause, but gave no evidence of the assignment upon the saunty signed George Denning, and objected to the said paper containing the said account, and the receipt of the same, going iri evidence to the jury. And the Court, [Earle, Ch. J. and Worrell, A. J.J were of opinion, that the same was not proper "and admissible evidence to go to the jury, being of opinion that the admissions of the assignor, made subsequent to the assignment, as evidenced in the acknow» ledgment itself, of payments made to him, ought not to be received as testimony to the prejudice of the rights of the assignee. The defendant excepted; am) the verdict and judgment being against her, she appealed to this court
    
      The admissions of (he assignor or si bond, made sub' sequent to the assignment* of payments in part of £he bond having been made to him, sre admissible in evidence.
    
      The cause was argued before Polk, Nicholson, and Johnson, J,
    
      Carmichael and Murray, for the Appellant,
    contended, 1. That there was no sufficient evidence of the assignment, of the bond to W'oodland, under whom Page claimed. 2. The declarations of Denning were evidence. They cited Chitty's Plead. 6. Bauerman vs. Radenius, 7 T. R. 662; and Peake's Evid. 164.
    
      ffomton and Rarroll, for the Appellee.
   JUDGMENT REVERSED.'  