Case Name: CAMPBELL'S ex'rs. vs. SULLIVAN
Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Kentucky
Decision Date: 1805-06-04
Citations: 1 Hard. 17
Docket Number: 
Parties: CAMPBELL’S ex’rs. vs. SULLIVAN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Kentucky Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 17–18

Head Matter:
CAMPBELL’S ex’rs. vs. SULLIVAN.
June 4th.
Creating a truft upon per-fnnal eftate by-will forthe payment of debts, Will not revive a debt barred by the ftatute of limitation*.
SULLIVAN brought an action of assumpsit against Campbell’s executors. They pleaded nsn assumpsit and the statute of limitations ; on which issues were made Up. On the trial a special verdict was found which left to the decision of the court, whether the will of Camp-belltook the case out of the statute of limitations.
The will, as far as related to the question, vested the real and personal estate in the executors “ in trust for the purposes herein mentioned, to wit: the slaves and personal estate to be sold at twelve months credit; and opt of the money arising by the sales thereof, to pay and satisfy mv ju3t debts, as soon as the money’ can be collec ted,notwithstanding any lawnOw existing, or which may hereafter exist, to the contrary thereof.” The will then declared other trusts as to the residue of the estate.
The circuit court of Jefferson decided that this clause in the will, took the case outof the statute of limitations ; and entered judgment for the plaintiff. The executors appealed.

Opinion:
The Opinion of this Court was as follows: — No case has been adduced, nor can the court in all their researches find one, where it has been adjudged, that the creating a trust upon personal estate, or in other words, a devise oí personal estate alone, for the payment of debts, has revived a debt that was barred by the statute of limitations ; and the note in 3 Pr. Wms. 89, shows that none such does exist: and all the cases adduced is where real estate has been subjected by the devise for that purpose. Even in some of those cases it appears that the judges doubted the propriety of the rule ; as it was a construction in effectto contravene an express act of parliament. But further, it is laid down that wherever real estate has been affected by such stale debts, it is only in plain and clear cases, and not to be charged in so loose a manner as this is, which depends upon a long Unliquidated account, supported by parol evidence ; and when it appears there was contrariety in the testimony. This court is therefore of opinion the inferior Court erred in giving judgment for the plaintiff on the special verdict.
Judgment reversed.