
    Thomas Wilson versus John Appleton.
    A creditor in a foreign country, having an agent here, is not therefore within the statute of limitations.
    Assumpsit on several promises. The plaintiff names himself of London, in the kingdom of Great Britain, merchant, an alien, never resident within the United States, or either of them.
    The defendant pleads that the cause of action did not accrue within six years, &c. The plaintiff replies, that at the time when the cause of action accrued to him, he was beyond sea, without any of the United States, viz., at London, &c., and hath ever since so continued. The defendant rejoins, that within six years after making the supposed promises, and ever since, until the commencement of this action, the plaintiff has had an agent, who in each year during that time has been within this commonwealth, and duly authorized to demand and receive his said supposed debt of the defendant, which debt was, by an agent of the plaintiff, during that time demanded of the defendant, who denied that any such debt was due from him to the plaintiff. Wherefore he says that the plaintiff was not, during said time, under any disability to present his supposed claim, and commence his suit against the defendant therefor. To this rejoinder the plaintiff demurs, and the defendant joins in demurrer
    
      
      Webster and Peabody, for the defendant.
    In the case of Perry vs. Jackson 
      , it was decided that if one plaintiff be abroad, and others not, the action must be brought within six [ * 181 J years. From that decision the analogy is very * strong to the case at bar. The having an agent in the country effectually prevents the impediment intended to be protected by the statute. So, if a creditor dies abroad, the limitation begins to run from the appointment of an administrator . Since it has been determined that foreigners are within the statute, and that a return to the United. States is not essential , if the point taken by the defendant in this case is not maintained, the statute can never operate as a bar to foreigners.
    
      W. Sullivan, for the plaintiff.
    The statute wholly excepts parties beyond sea. The having an agent here does not remove the impediment. Foreigners were always considered as in better condition, as to the operation of the statute of limitations, than citizens .
    It is singular that such a rejoinder is no where to be found in the books, since the practice is very frequent with foreign merchants to have agents here to look after their debtors. In the cases cited for the defendant, the party having the right of action was in the country.
    
      
      
        4 D.fyE. 516.
    
    
      
       2 Fern. 694.
    
    
      
       14 Mass. Rep. 203, Hall vs. Little.
      
    
    
      
       3 Wils. 145, Strithorst vs. Graeme.—2 W. Black. 723, S. C.—13 East, 449, Williams vs. Jones.—3 Johns. 266, Ruggles vs. Keeler.—1 W. Black. 286.
    
   Curia.

The defendant’s counsel, to support the rejoinder, have argued that the saving in the statute was intended to apply to citizens of the commonwealth only, who may be absent beyond sea, when their causes of action accrue. But the saving in the statute is general to all who are beyond sea, and the word return cannot restrict the operation to those only who have been in the commonwealth, and have left it for temporary purposes.

As to the fact averred in the rejoinder, that the plaintiff had an agent in the commonwealth during bis absence, this might be a reasonable exception to the saving, if the legislature had seen fit to introduce it. But such a case not being provided for, it is not for the Court to legislate on the subject .

Rejoinder adjudged bad. 
      
       [Vide Byrne vs. Crowninshield, ante, 56, and cases in the note.—Ed ]
     