
    Pardon T. Mumford & another vs. John Freeman.
    The maker of a note wrote a- letter to the payee, offering to give a new note payable on time, and saying, “ you shall have your pay if 1 live, and the whaling business does not fail: JNow, if you will agree to this, I will renew; or else you must do the next best.” The payee did not accept the offer, but brought an action on the note. Held, that the letter did not take the note out of the operation of the statute of limitations.
    Assumpsit on three promissory notes. The defendant relied on the statute of limitations. The parties submitted the case to the court on the following facts agreed*
    
      The notes declared on were made by the defendant, more than six years before the commencement of the suit; and this letter was written by him to one of the plaintiffs: “ New
    Bedford, February 15th 1843. Mr. Benjamin Mumford. Dear Sir: As it is your request that Mr. Tillinghast should have the notes renewed that you have against me, I write to you that I will renew the forty and twenty dollar notes, with interest, and the ninety dollar note, without the interest since given, to be paid not short of six years to come ; for there is no way open for me to pay, as I see now. You should have had every cent due you this last voyage that I made in the Roman, if I had got any where from seventy to ninety cents for the oil. As I got but fifty cents, my voyage amounted to but $800, and after my family’s and my expenses were paid, and $ 100 for insurance on the voyage was paid, I had $37 left. But you shall have your pay, if I live and the whaling business don’t fail. Grieves me to think I can’t and couldn’t pay you before. Now, if you will agree to do this, I will renew, or else you must do the next best. Yours, &c. John Freeman.”
    The notes referred to in this letter are the notes in suit.
    
      Eliot, for the plaintiffs,
    cited Bangs v. Hall, 2 Pick. 378; Whitney v. Bigelow, 4 Pick. 110; and Barnard v. Bartholomew, 22 Pick. 293.
    
      Colby, for the defendant,
    cited Wetzell v. Bussard, 11 Wheat. 309; Moore v. Bank of Columbia, 6 Pet. 92; and Fries v. Boisselet, 9 S. & R. 128.
   By the Court.

The acknowledgment and promise to renew the notes on certain terms were conditional, and the terms were not acceded to. The letter does not express either an unconditional promise to pay, or an unqualified admission of present indebtedness, from which such promise can be inferred, so as to take the case out of the operation of the statute of limitations. Barnard x. Bartholomew, 22 Pick. 291. Moon v. Bank of Columbia, 6 Pet. 92.

Judgment for the defendant.  