
    WARNER et al. v. P. ALLEE, Administrator of Jonathan Allee, and GEORGE P. DAINS.
    Court of Chancery. Kent.
    August, 1818.
    
      Clayton’s Notebook, 75.
      
    
    
      Bidgely for complainants.
    The confession of Dains avoids the-plea of Statute of Limitations. So does the payment in 1813.. Whitcomb v. Whiting, Doug. 629. Jackson v. Fairbank, 2 H.Bl. 342. As to the equities of this case, P. Allee stands in the-shoes of his intestate.
    
      Hall for Allee.
    Where defendants sever [al], the answer of one cannot affect the others. This is not like the cases cited. There the partnership continued when the payments were made; here it was dissolved by the death of Jonathan Allee, when the-last payment was made. In 8 Cranch, one late partner admitted that he had not paid a debt; held not sufficient to take the case-out of the Statute, for perhaps the other had.
    
      
       This case is also reported in Ridgely’s Notebook II, 228, which account is. found at 1 Del. Ch. 49.
    
   Chancellor Ridgely.

This case is like Whitcomb, etc., Doug, 629, and 2 H.B1. Complainant too has equities. Heath v. Percival, 1 Str. 403. Allee ought to have called Dains to account.

Decree for complainants.  