
    
      Sheppard’s executors vs. Cook’s executors.
    ^JpHIS is the action spoken of before in. the other case of the -'*• same name. It was an action of debt on a bond, dated in 1775, payable in iff4. Within IS or 16 years, the plaintiff and the defendant had been at variance, and agreed to be reconciled, Mid the plaintiff invited him to his house. Cook said within she same time, that the bond was given for the lands he had in his possession, but that the obligee had not made him a title, and he would not pay.
   Hall, judge,

directed the jury, that from the 10th of March, 1773, to june, 1784, was not to be regarded in the computation of tinae---and that payment might be presumed in 15 or 16 years, with small circumstances to aid it.

They found for the defendant; and the plaintiff’s counsel moved for a new trial; and after argument, and time taken to consider,

Hall said, it is proper that the time for raising a presumption of payment against a bond, should be fixed and understood in the same way by all the courts. Some other judges hare considered that 20 years was the time s here there is neither 20, or even 18 years; so that the presumption has not attached, if that opinion be correct. A.Iso, payment pleaded, means pay-rnent at the day ,- and if so, the evidence proved an admission of the debt long; since, and of course its existence since the time to which this plea refers. There must be a new trial.

Ilayvjcod endeavored to continue the other case for want of a materia', witness; but Hall said he would not receive any'affidavit but Cue plaintiff himself; and said to Haywood, “you know that it is a rule you yourself have urged.” I do not know whether he referred to T/heaton and Cross,- Wilmington,'May term, 1801.  