
    [Sunbury,
    June 17, 1828.]
    INGRAM and others, Executors of MITCHELL, against SHERARD.
    IN ERROR.
    To constitute a mutual account within the exception in the statute of limitations, there must be reciprocal demands: it does not apply where the demand is altogether on one. side, though payments on account have been made. ■ ' ’
    Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Mifflin county, in a suit commenced in July, 1825, before a justice, on .book account, brought by James Sherard against William Ingram and Robert Ingram, executors of Robert Mitchell, deceased; pleas non assumpserunt, and the statute of limitations.
    The plaintiff gave in evidence his book of original entries, containing thé following items:—
    
      Jlugust, 1809. 1 Coffeepot, - $1,12%
    
    
      May 17th, 1812. '2-Barrels of shad, - $28,00
    Do. do. 3 Pounds of coffee, - ■ - $1,00
    
      November 7th, 1819. 7 Half gallons of whis- ' key, - • - • - ’ - 50
    $36,62?
    
      *ftagnst 16th, 1804. Half a yard of calico, - . . 40
    $31,02§
    Cr. Nov. 17th, 1812, by cash, - - $20,00
    The court below instructed the jury,—
    That where there have been mutual dealings, and some of- the items are within the six years, they will draw after them the preceding items that are beyond six years. '
    Here there is a charge within six years. There is no credit within six years: there is -a credit beyond the six years, and the question is, whether this item takes the case out of the statute. The court thinks it does, and if the jury are satisfied with the proof, they will give a verdict for the balance of the account with interest, from a reasonable time after the dealings ceased.
    To which opinion of the court, an exception was taken by the ' defendants.
   The opinion of the court was delivered by-

Rogers, J.

Conceding that this is such an account as concerns the trade of merchandize, between merchant and merchant, their factors and servants, is it a mutual account so as to bring it within the exception of the statute? The principle which governs this case was ruled by Justice Dennison, in Coates v. Harris, Bull N. P. 149. Tile clause in the statute of limitations about merchants* accounts, extended only to cases where there were mutual accounts and reciprocal demands against .two persons. There were no-mutual and reciprocal demands between Sherard and Mitchell. The demand was altogether on one side; for Mitchell had no account whatever against Sherard. He had, it is true, paid him twenty dollars.on account, for which Sherard had given him credit, more than six years before the institution of this suit, but this' does not constitute a reciprocal demand within the meaning of the court in Coates, v. Harris, but is a payment in part of Mitchell’s account.

Judgment reversed, and a venire facias dé novo awarded.  