Case Name: James S. Richman and John T. Richman, Administrators of Thomas Richman, deceased, v. David Richman and Mary Richman, Executors of David Richman, deceased
Court: New Jersey Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1824-09
Citations: 8 N.J.L. 67
Docket Number: 
Parties: James S. Richman and John T. Richman, Administrators of Thomas Richman, deceased, v. David Richman and Mary Richman, Executors of David Richman, deceased.
Judges: Rossell, J., concurred.
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 8
Pages: 67–68

Head Matter:
James S. Richman and John T. Richman, Administrators of Thomas Richman, deceased, v. David Richman and Mary Richman, Executors of David Richman, deceased.
To an action of debt on bond, a plea that the bond was not made within sixteen years is bad under the statute of limitations. (Rev. Lavis 411, See. 6.) It should lie. that the cauce of action did not accrue within sixteen years.
This was an action of debt brought upon a bond, dated the 29th of March,' 1799, conditioned for the payment of one hundred pounds in ten equal annual installments, the first installment, of ten pounds with interest, to be paid on the 31st day of June, 1800. The declaration was in the usual form l'or the penalty of the bond. The defendants craved oyer of the bond and condition, and then pleaded, First, non est factum. Second, “that the said David Rich-man, deceased, in Ms life time, did not make, execute and deliver unto the said Thomas Ricliman, deceased, any such writing obligatory as is mentioned in the declaration of the said plaintiffs, within sixteen yeqrs next before the commencement of this suit.” Third, payment. The plaintiffs, by their replication, joined issue upon the first and third pleas ; and as to the second plea, they replied specially, set-’ ting out the condition of the bond, and then stating that by reason thereof the defendants “ became liable to pay to the plaintiffs the said sum of one hundred pounds, equal in value to two hundred and sixty-six dollars and sixty-six cents, with lawful interest in 'the manner and at the times in the said condition mentioned, the last payment to be made on the thirty-first day of June, eighteen hundred and nine, by the non-payment of which said sum with lawful interest thereon or any part thereof on the days and in the manner specified in the said condition a cause of .action accrued, &c.
To this replication the defendants filed a special demurrer, assigning for cause of demurrer, that the replication was a departure from the declaration, that it was argumentative, and that it did not answer the pleas.
Dayton, for the plaintiffs, Jeffers, for the defendants.

Opinion:
Kirkpatrick, 0. J.
The declaration in this case is on a bond conditioned for the payment of £100' in ten equal annual payments, the first payment to be 31st June, 1800. The defendants plead, 1st, non est factum; 2d, bond not made within sixteen years before > action brought; 3d, payment, to the second plea there is a special replication, and a demurrer by defendants to the replication. The second plea filed by the defendants in' this cause is manifestly bad. It does not answer the declaration. A plea upon the act of February 7th, 1799. (Dev. Laws 411, Sec. 6,) must be that the action was not commenced within sixteen years next after the cause thereof accrued; or after the day of payment mentioned in the condition of the bond.
Ford, J.
The words of the statute are, "that every action of debt upon any single or penal bill for the payment of money only, shall be commenced and sued within sixteen years next after the cause of such action shall have accrued and not after." The second plea of the defendants is therefore irregular; it Should have been that the cause of action accrued more than sixteen years ago, and not that the bond was not made within sixteen years.
Rossell, J., concurred.
Judgment for the plaintiffs.