
    Case lío. 10,088.
    NEIL v. ABBOTT.
    [2 Cranch, C. C. 193.] 
    
    District Court, District of Columbia.
    Jan. 20, 1820.
    Limitations op Actions — Offeb of Comfro-mise — Effect.
    The offer of terms of compromise is not sufficient to take the case out of the statute of limitations.
    [See Ash v. Hayman, Case No. 572; Bank of Columbia v. Sweeny, Id. 882.]
    To take the ease out of the statute of limitations, the plaintiff offered evidence of the acknowledgments of the defendant’s intestate, Campbell, when offering a compromise, viz. that Campbell acknowledged the debt to be due by Campbell and Matlock, and offered to pay one-half, although he said he was discharged by the insolvent law of Missouri, if the plaintiff would give him time.
    Mr. Key, for defendant,
    objected to this evidence, and cited Baird v. Eice, 1 Call, 26.
    Mr. Marbury, contra,
    cited 3 Esp. 113.
    
      
       [Beported by Hon. William Cranch, Chief Judge.]
    
   THE COURT

(THETJSTON, Circuit Judge,

contra) decided that the acknowledgment, under those circumstances, could not be given in evidence. Verdict for the defendant.  