
    [159] WHITE v. POTTER.
    On a demand of a debt, the defendant said that he had received the money, but that plaintiff had received and retained money belonging ti him; this is a sufficient acknowledgment to take the case out of Ihe statute of limitations.
    
      Error from the Common Pleas of Essex county.
    The plaintiff in error had been nou-suited in the court below, on the ground that the statute of limitations had barred his recovery of the debt in question.
    Jt appeared to be an action on a note, dated in 1776, by which Potter acknowledged the receipt of $40 from White, which he promised to pay on demand. The plaintiff proved that in 1791 he made a demand of the money, when defendant admitted he had had it, but said that White, as paymaster of the regiment to which defendant belonged, liad received his pay, and retained it to the amount of the note.
   Per Cur.

This is a sufficient acknowledgment of the debt to take the ease out of the statute of limitations; the non-suit was erroneously directed, and must be set aside.

Note — See Dean v. Pitts, 10 Johns. 35.  