
    Bank of Alexandria v. Ed. W. Clarke.
    In an action hy the indorsee of a promissory note against the maker, the indorser is a competent witness for the plaintiff, (without a release,) to prove an acknowledgment of the debt so as to take the case out of the statute of limitations.
    The defendant said he thought the plaintiff had charged up the note to his account; if that was not the case he would “ attend ” to it; this is sufficient to rehut the plea of the statute of limitations.
    Assumpsit, by the indorsee against the maker of a promissory note for $64.25.
    A verdict was taken for the plaintiff “ subject to the opinion of the Court, whether the deposition of C. Neale, the indorser of the note be admissible as evidence in this cause, without a release from the plaintiffs; and, if admissible, whether it be sufficient’ per se to take the case out of the statute of limitations. Judgment to be rendered for plaintiffs or defendant according to the opinion of the Court on the above points.
   The Court,

at December term, 1824, (Cranch, C. J., contra,) gave judgment for the plaintiffs. See Barnes v. Ball, 1 Mass. Rep. 73, and Rice v. Stearns, 3 Ib. 225; Gaither v. Lee, in this Court, at June term, 1820, (ante, 205,) and Knowles v. Stuart, at April term, 1824, (ante, 457.)  