Case ID: h-j_2/html/0307-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Poe vs. Conway's Adm’r.
    ' ; In assumpsit fhs* work and labour* ■ the aetof limiiatm - ons was pleaded— Held, that evidence of an acknowledge ment by the defend daut that the plain» tiff had performed work for him, but that he had an ae-> count in bar, and when a person who was then up the hay should come lo town he 'would have the business settled, was sniii« eient to defeat the operation of the* not of limitation*,
    Appeai. from Baltimore county court. Jlssumpsitbrought by the appellee on the 7th of April 1801, for work and labour, &e. performed by his intestate for Poe, the appellant, on the 4th of September 1798. The act of limitations was pleaded; and at the trial the.plaintiff below offered testimony to prove an acknowledgment by the defendant, that the intestate had performed work for him, but thai he had an account in bar, and when a person who was then up the bay. should come to town, he would, have the business settled. The defendant prayed the court to direct the jury, that this testimony was not sufficient on ' the pleadings to prevent the operation of the statute of limitations; which direction the court refused to give. The. defendant excepted; and the verdict and judgment being ngainst him, he appealed to this court, ;
    
      Martin and Gwynn, ior the Appellant,.
    
      JJotthigsworih, for the Appellee.
   JUDSSÍF.NT AFFIRM Elf;,’