
    Anonymous.
    The words of a will, directing all just debts to be paid, will prevent the bar of the statute of limitations.
    One of the questions in this case was, whether the Plaintiff was barred by the act of limitations. The note oí’hand was given in the year 1783, in the month October or .November. An action was brought seven or eight years after, but in the mean time Defendant di<‘d, not long' before the commencement of this suit, and by his will in one. part thereof said, after payment of all my just debts, then 1 give, &c. Fer curiam—The act of limitations was made to prevent the inconvenience of stale demands, and to hinder them after a reasonable length of time front rising up to charge him. This law though very .generally reprobated, is founded upon prin-cipies of justice, and ought to be adhered to $ and bad the act never received an interpretation which might govern the present case, the court would now be of opinion, that the using of such words in a ¡nan’s will, ought not t« prevent the operation of that act, for that they are words common in almost ail wills : but these words by former decisions, have been held to have that effect, for the executor without such words is bound to pay all recoverable debts ; bur these words are supposed to bind him to something further — the. payment of all just debts, 3 P. Wil. 373, Sulk. 154. 2 Vern 141. whether recoverable at law or not, and are deemed to mean more than the law lays upon the executor without any such words used. The Plaintiff had a verdict and judgment. Baker for Plaintiff, and Davie for Defendant.
   Note. — Quere, whether this cage is not overruled by the case of Walker's Ex’rs. v. Campbell & others, 1 Hawks 304, in which it vas" held, that a debt barred hv the statute oi limitations is not revived -..y a direction in the debtor. will, that certa.n slaves be sold “and t with the proceeds there of, paying my debts, they,” &c. See also Barke v. Jones, 2 Ves & Beam. 275.  