
    
      Same vs. Mosely.
    A'* ASE upon a note of hand and the act of limitation pleaded. The note was dated and made payable in the year VÍ7S — — This action was commenced in the year 1?82, hut the plaintiff proved the note was presented to Mosely not longer than a-month or two before the beginning of the action — who raid, “ ft was at the desire of ray mother I gave it; I will not pay it ; liosser ought to pay it; I will speak to him about it.
   2'cr Curiam.

Williams and Haywood.

After the point bad-beeu reserved and argued, the latter words of this conversation., admit the debt has never been paid ; the former admit the defendants signature. An admission oí the signature, it is true, is no admission of the debt; for still it may be usurious, a gaming debt, or the money may have been paid, or il may be Under some other circumstances which render it not a just debt r. but when he says Rosser ought to pay it, I will speak to him about it — -this shews the debt is not paid; and though he says at the same time, 5 will not pay it — yet being legally due from him, the law will compel him to pay it.

There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiff,  