Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/271

 Sesame Couar or Pm;6Io¤aI¢.— 26; I tations, mull: be fullicient to prevent his recovering, or defalk- l7§fa ing the amount. Taz Counr below, however, admitted the t/vnlé evidence, upon which a verdiél was found in favor of the de- § fendant for a balance; but the plaintiff tool: a Bill of Exceptions to the decilion, and brought die prefcnt Writ. of Error to try its validit. Ing;/HL for the Defendant in Error, contended that the cafe of a Factor was not within the aft of limitations { r wl. Dall. Edit. ji. gg.) There may be fomc doubt, whether the exception " in the aft embraces accounts between merchants, which are not a proper foundation for an a&ion of armmt remlvr; but`ar- csunt render is the appropriate remedy for a principal againlt his faflor, 3 W 83. 85; and, eonfequently, the prefent cafe is clearly within the principle, as well as the terms, of the excep- tion. In r   Abr. 8. pl. 6. there is an authority nearly in point; articles furnilhcd being allowed, under limilar circum- llances, as a fet·oll·` againll: a Bond; the Court declaring that 2 difcount was natural juflicc in all cafes; and the Legiilature of PH"!/5'l‘I.’!|llld mult have entertained a limiiar opinion, when the _ general aft for defalcation was paifcd. x Vol. Dall. Edit. p. 6g; Candy, for the Plaintiff in Error, fuhmitted, implicitly, to the opinion of the Court, whether, under th: circumlianees of the cafe, the defendant`:. claim on the accounts was barred: butnif the opinion was in the allirmative, he remarlrcd, that the Jury by linding a verdict a ainli the plaintilli had eilabliihed the ac-= counts barred, as a fuiltantive demand (not merely as a feboli;. . according to the cafe in r Eg. Alvr. 8. pl. 6.) and, confequently, = the vcrdiéi, and the judgment upon it, were erroneous. But Tr-ns. Couwr were, unanimoully, of opinion, that the ac- eounts, on which the fe:-off had been claimed, were not within the aft of Limitations; and that the Common Plea.: had done _ right in admitting the evidence offered by the defendant. X _ judgment atlirmed. " ‘ Zeurzxucen vnju Ow. . ·•= ‘ TESTATUM Ca. Sa. had i1l`ued to the Sheriff ot Lari- A l`/{nfl", upon which the party was arrelled, and the mo- ‘ `A uey paid. But the Sheriff paid it over to the nominal, iulicad _ {_ " of the real, plaintif}`, tho' the indorfemcnt for the ufe, Src. was on the writ. At the lafi tcrm, Hallowell obtained a rule to rc- turn the Tgll. Ca. Sn. or to fhcw caufe this day, why an attach- ment {hould not illiie againll: the fherill`; and now, upon proof of fcrvice of the rule, he moved that the attachment lhould be · awarded. ‘ Br rn-ra Coua·r;—·—Let the attaclunsnt i{l`uc, returnable the lull day of the ttrm. Ll GERMAN

�