
    GENERAL COURT,
    MAY TERM, 1794.
    Langkopff, Moiling & Rasch against Hannah West, Executrix of Stephen West, who was surviving partner of West and Hobson.
    ACTION in assumpsit, for goods sold and delivered to Hobson, in London, on account of the copartnership. Plaintiffs were British merchants residing in London. West resided in Maryland., and Hobson resided in London. The defendant pleaded the following pleas :
    “ And the said Hannah, by Luther Martin, her attorney, comes and defends the force and injury, when, &c. and saith, that the said Stephen West and the said John Hob-son did not undertake in manner and form as the said Langkopff, Moiling Rasch above, in their declaration have complained ; and of this she puts herself upon the country, &c. And the said Hannah, with leave of the court here first had and obtained, according to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, comes by her said attorney, and defends the force and injury, when, &c. and further saith, that the said Langkopff, Moiling & Rasch, their action aforesaid thereof against her to have and maintain ought not, because she saith, that the said Stephen West and John Hobson did not, at any time within three years next before the impetration of the original writ of the said Langkopff, Moiling £s? Rasch, in this suit, undertake upon themselves in manner and form as they in their said declaration above have complained, and this she is ready to verify; wherefore she prays judgment, if they the said Langkopff, Moiling Rasch, their action aforesaid thereof against her to have and maintain ought, &c. And the sxiá. Hannah West, with the leave of the court here being first had and obtained, according to the form of the statute jn such case made and provided, further comes by her said attorney and defends the force and injury, when, &c. and saith, that the said Langkopff, Moiling £s* Rasch, their action thereof against her to have and maintain ought not, because she saith, that the said Langkopff", Moiling Rasch, and the said John Hobson, at the time of the assumption aforesaid, in the said declaration alleged to have been made, and long before, were subjects of the King of Great Britain, residing in that part of Great Britain called England, and that the said Langkopff, Moiling Ss5 Rasch, and the said John Hobson, continued to be subjects of the said King of Great Britain until the death of the said John Hobson, and that the said Langkopff", Moiling Rasch, now are, and ever have been, subjects of the said king, and residing in that part of Great Britain called England, and that the assumption and undertaking in the said declaration alleged to have been made, was made in the said kingdom of Great Britain, and in that part thereof called England. And the said Hannah further saith, that by a certain act of the parliament of James the first, King of England, at the parliament begun and holden the nineteenth day of February, in the twenty-first year of his reign, at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, then made, among other things it was enacted by the authority of the said parliament, “ that all actions of trespass quare clausum fregit, all actions of trespass, detinue, action sur trover and replevin, for taking away goods and chattels, all actions of account and upon the case, other than such accounts as concern the trade between merchant and merchant, their factors or servants, all actions of debt for arrearages of rent, and all actions of assault, menace, battery, wounding and imprisonment, and any of them which should be sued, or brought at any time after the end of that session of parliament, should be commenced and sued within the time and limitation in the said act after-wards expressed, and not after, that is to say, the said actions upon the case, other than for slander, and the said action for trespass quare clausum fregit, within six years next after the cause of such actions or suits, and not after,” as by the said act of the said parliament more fully appears and is manifest. And the said Hannah further saith, that the said session of the said parliament, ended the 29th day of May, in the twenty-second year of the reign of the said King James, and that the promise and assumption aforesaid, in the said declaration supposed to have been made, was made since the said twenty-ninth day of May, in the said year, and that the said Langkopjf, Moiling cs? Rasch, did not commence or sue any action against the said Stephen West and John Hob-son, at any time within six years after the time of making the said promise and assumption in the said declaration supposed to have been made, according to the form of the said statute last mentioned ; and this she is ready to verify, &c. wherefore she prays judgment if the said Langkopjf, Moiling Rasch, their action thereof against her to have and maintain ought,” &c.
    
      To which pleas the plaintiffs replied as follows, to wit: “ And the said Langkopff, Moiling Si? Sasch, as to the first plea of the said Hannah above pleaded, in like manner,” &c. “ And as to the second plea of the said Hannah above pleaded, the said Langkopff, Moiling Sasch say that the)’, by any thing in the said second plea above alleged, to be precluded from having and maintaining their said action ought not, because they say, that at the time of making the said promise and assumption of the said Stephen West and John Hobson, in the declaration aforesaid of them the said Langkopff, Moiling £s? Sasch above mentioned, they the said Langkopff, Moiling ci? Sasch were, always since have been, and yet are, residing in parts beyond sea, to wit, in London, in the kingdom of Great Britain; and this they are ready to verify, &c„ wherefore they pray judgment,” &c.
    “ And as to the third plea of the said Hannah above pleaded, the said Langkopff, Moiling £i? Sasch say that they, by any thing in the said third plea above alleged, to be precluded from having and maintaining their said action ought not, because they say that the said plea, and the matter therein contained,, is not sufficient in law to bar or preclude them the said Langkopff, Moiling £s? Sasch from having and maintaining their said action, and to which said plea they are not bound to answer, and this they are ready to verify ; wherefore, for want of a sufficient plea in this behalf, the said Langkopff, Moiling £s? Sasch do demur and pray judgment,” &c.
    To which said replications the defendant rejoined as follows, to wit:
    “ And as to the replication aforesaid by the said Langkopff, Moiling Sasch to the second plea of her the said Hannah replied, she the said Hannah saith, that notwithstanding any thing therein contained, the said Langkopff, Moiling Sasch, their action aforesaid thereof against her to maintain ought not, because she saith, that the said Langkopff, Moiling Ss? Sasch, and the said John Hobson,
    
    
      at the time of the assumptions aforesaid, in the said declaration alleged to have been made, and long before, Were the subjects of the King of Great Britain, residing in that part of Great Britain called England, and that the said Langkopjf, Moiling cs? Rasch, and the said John Hobson, continued to be subjects of the King of Great Britain aforesaid, until the death of the said John Hob-son, and that the said Langkopff', Moiling Rasch now are, and ever have been, subjects of the said king, and residing in that part of Great Britain called England, and that the assumptions and undertakings in the said declaration alleged to have been made, were made in the said kingdom of Great Britain, and in that part thei -ioi called England; and she further saith, that by a certain act If the parliament of James I. King of England, at the parliament begun and holden the 19th day of February in the 21st year of his reign, at Westminster, in the county of Middlesex, then made, among other things it was enacted, by the authority of the said parliament, “ that all actions of trespass quare clausum fregit, all actions of trespass, detinue, actions sur trover and replevin, for taking away goods and chattels, all actions of account and upon the case, other than such accounts as concern the trade between merchant and merchant,-their factors or servants, all actions of debt for arrearages of rent, and all actions of assault, menace, battery, wounding and imprisonment, ■and any of them, which should be sued or brought at any time after the end of that session of parliament should be commenced and sued within the time and limitation in the said act afterwards expressed, and not after; that is to say, the said actions upon the case, other than for slander, and the said actions for trespass quare clausum fregit, within six years next after the cause of such actions or suits, and not after,” as by the said act of the said parliament more fully appears and is manifest: and the said Hannah further saith, that the said session of the said parliament ended the 29th day of May, in the 22d year of the reign of the said%ing James; and that the promises and assumptions aforesaid, in the said decíaration supposed to have been made, were made since the said 29th day of May, in the said year; and that the said Langkopff, Moiling Rasch did not commence or sue any action against the said Stephen West and John Hobson, at any time within six. years after the time of making the said promises and assumptions in the said declaration supposed to have been made according to the form of the said statute last mentioned ; and this she is ready to verify: wherefore she prays judgment if the said Langkopff, Mollinga & Rasch, their action thereof against her to have or maintain ought, &c. And as to any thing by the said Langkopff, Moiling Rasch above replied in answer to the third plea by the said Hannah pleaded, she the said Hannah saith, that they the said Langkopff, Moiling Rasch, by any thing therein contained ought not to have or maintain their action aforesaid thereof against her, because she saith that she sufficient matter in law in bar of the action of the said Langkopff, Moiling Rasch above hath pleaded in her said third plea, and that the said Hannah is ready to verify the matter contained in. the same plea, which said matter the said Lang- - kopfy Moiling & Rasch have not denie'd, or in any manner answered thereto, but have altogether refused to admit the verification thereof: wherefore she prays judgment and that the aforesaid Langkopff, Moiling £s? Rasck from having their action aforesaid thereof against her should be precluded,” &c.
    The plaintiffs demurred to the rejoinder, and the court determined the demurrer good, it being an immaterial issue.
    
      Cooke, "for the plaintiffs.
    
      Martin, (Attorney-General,) for the defendant.
   The attorney-general cited 4 Durnf. & East, 516.  