
    Aaron Lockhart vs. N. R. Eaves, adm’r of James Adier.
    Acknowledgments and promises, to obviate the statute of limitations, are not sufficient, unless they specify, or plainly refer to, some particular demand or cause of action, to be revived or created by them.
    BEFORE BUTLER, J., AT CHESTER, SPRING TERM, 1838.
    This was an action of assumpsit, brought to recover 'the balance of an account alleged to have been due the plaintiff by the defendant’s intestate. The statute of limitations was pleaded, and the questipn was, whether its operation had been obviated by the testimony.
    It appeared that the parties had mutual accounts of long standing, which about ten years previous to the trial, they placed in the hands of one Clement Wood, with a request that he would adjust them. He accordingly did so, making a balance in favor of the plaintiff, of the amount now sued for. He made out a copy for each party, but recollected no more of the circumstances. The intestate died in 1835, previous to which time, (1812,) the plaintiff had removed from the State. In 1833, the intestate was proved to have said, that Lockhart had come to him for a debt which he never expected to pay; but said “I am too old to go to law, I will pay it as soon as I can. I am able to pay it.” On another occasion, when an account was presented to him by a son of the plaintiff, he said “ he would pay it, but that he had not the money about him then.”
    On the part of the defendant, it was proved that James Adier, Jr., had a settlement with Lockhart, for the intestate— that he had paid Aaron Lockhart, fifty dollars — he took a receipt and delivered it to the intestate. It was also in evidence that the person who was said to have presented the account for payment, stated to different persons that the intestate refused to pay it to him.
    The presiding judge regarded the case as depending very much on the credibility of the witnesses. In speaking of the account which the intestate promised to pay, no particular account was designated; and whether it was the account sued upon, depended upon inferences to be drawn from the acts > and conduct of the parties, and was properly a question for the jury. It was accordingly submitted to them to determine ; and they found for the plaintiff the whole amount claimed by him.
    The defendant appealed, and moved for a new trial, on the following grounds:
    1st. Because the case was clearly barred, and there was no sufficient proof of a promise to pay to take the case out of the statute of limitations, as the witness did not say what sum the defendant’s intestate promised to pay, whether one dollar or more; and that too in the absence of any evidence of a claim.
    2d. Because there clearly was no proof to support the count on an insimul compuiassent, as the account commenced between the parties by the witness, Wood, was not completed, and was added by the plaintiff or his agent.
    3d. Because it was proven that the debt was fully paid in 1817.
    4th. Because the verdict was against the evidence and the opinion of the Court.
    
      Evans and Thompson, defendant’s attorneys.
    ---, contra.
   Butler, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

From the whole complexion of this case, it is not one that deserves the countenance and favor of the Court. It is founded on a stale demand; the original parties to the alleged contract not having had any direct dealings with each other since 1812 — a period of more than twenty-five years. The adjustment made by Wood, was, it seems at least fifteen years pay. It is evident that be bad paid some money to plaintiff' since the settlement made by Wood; and it may have been, that be was willing to pay some amount smaller and different from that which appears on the demand sued for. The acknowledgment imposing the obligation, should also have shown the demand upon which it was founded; so that the Court could have pronounced on its effect and validity. pay. It is evident that be bad paid some money to plaintiff' since the settlement made by Wood; and it may have been, that be was willing to pay some amount smaller and different from that which appears on the demand sued for. The acknowledgment imposing the obligation, should also have shown the demand upon which it was founded; so that the Court could have pronounced on its effect and validity.

The motion for a new trial is granted.  