
    ADMr’x. J. JOHNSON VS. ED. W. BOUNETHEA.
    Defendant, on being applied to by the agent of the plaintiff’s intestate, for payment of a medical account, replied, “I have also an account against Dr. J. which I will discount against his, when I get mine made out, and will settle with you:” held that this was a sufficient admission of the debt, and promise to pay, to take the case out of the Statute of-Limitations.
    
      Before Earle, J"., at Charleston, May Term, 1835.
    Assumpsit on open account, for medical attendance. Pleas, statute of limitations, and general issue.
    The declaration contained counts, 1st, for services as a physician, surgeon and apothecary, for medicines, &c.; 2nd, quantum meruit; 3d, inJ serml conyputassent. The debt was barred by the statute of limitations,to avoid which, the following proof was made : Mr. Sparkman, agent for plaintiff’s intestate, in January or February, 1833, presented the account to defendant, who replied, “I have also an account against Dr Johnson, which I will discount against his, when 1 get mine made out, and will settle with you.” Mr. Sparkman replied, “prepare your account, and I will settle with you in any way, as I have authority.” He afterwards found in the hands of Dr. Johnson, an account in the hand writing of defendant, similar to that now produced, which was proved by Mr. Mc-Cready, to have been delivered to him by Dr. Johnson, in the spring of 1833.
    On this evidence, the presiding judge charged the jury, that they might well find for the plaintiff, if they were satisfied that there was an admission of the debt, and a promise to pay it; and that defendant’s receiving plaintiff’s account, and rendering his own, after his declaration to Spark-man, was sufficient proof to sustain the count, on the insemul computas■sent.
    
    The jury found for the plaintiff, allowing defendant the amount of his demand. The defendant appealed, and moves for a new trial, on the ground
    That the evidence was not sufficient to revive the plaintiff’s right of action, and to take the case out of the statute’of limitations.
   Curia, per

Chancellor Joiínson.

This case falls very clearly within the rule laid down in Young vs. Monepoey, 2 Bail., 280. The evidence adduced in support of the new promise, imports, I think, not only an admission of a subsisting debt, but also a promise to pay. The proposition of the defendant, to discount his own account against the demand, is, in itself, a distinct confession of his liability to pay it; and his declaration that he would “settle” with the plaintiff’s agent, when bis account was made out, is, in common parlance, generally substituted for a direct promise to pay, and as used here, would scarcely admit of any other construction. The verdict is therefore right.

There is, I am aware, a very general prejudice against a defence founded entirely on the statute of limitations, and there is danger "that juries will be disposed to infer a new promise, from very slight circumstances, and thus render the rule inoperative; but the corrective is in the hands of the court, and by keeping the principle constantly in view, the evil will be avdidedi

Motion dismissed.

Richardson, O’Neall and Butler, JJ., and Chancellors DjgSaussurb and Johnston, concurred.  