MORETON v. HARRISON.—1 BLAND. 465

tioned and expressed in the bond marked exhibit A, filed by the
complainants with their said bill, and referred to by them; or any
sum of money, for or concerning any of the matters or transactions
in the complainants' said bill of complaint charged or alleged.
And therefore this defendant pleads the Act of the General Assem-
bly of the Province, (now State,) of Maryland, passed at a session
of Assembly begun and held at the City of Annapolis, the twenty-
sixth day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven
hundred and fifteen, entitled 'An Act for Limitation of certain
actions, and for avoiding suits at law '—and prays the benefit of
the said Act.

"All which matters this defendant doth aver and plead in bar
of the complainants' said bill, and of the complainants' pretended
demand for which they seek to be relieved by their said bill. And
this defendant prays hence to be dismissed with his reasonable
costs in this behalf wrongfully sustained."

These pleas were submitted, without replication, on the notes of
the solicitors of the parties, to take the opinion of the Court on
their sufficiency.

* BLAND, C., 22d December, 1826.—These pleas have been
set down for hearing without a replication; consequently, 493
the sole object is to obtain the judgment of the Court on their
sufficieney as they stand at this stage of the proceedings. The
bill charges, in substance, not only, that the defendant for a
valuable consideration became indebted to the intestates of the
plaintiffs; but it also goes on to allege, that the defendant after-
wards paid a part of the debt; and that although he, " well knows
and has repeatedly admitted the said sum of money and interest
to be due, and has promised at various times to pay the same," yet
he has not done so.

It is perfectly well settled, that a partial payment is such an
acknowledgment of the existence of the debt as will take the case
out of the Statute of Limitations. But in this case, the partial
payment referred to was made on the 16th of October, 1793, and
this suit was not instituted until the 29th of November, 1825, a
lapse of more than thirty years. This, therefore, is clearly not
such an allegation, as if admitted to be true, would take the case
out of the Statute of Limitations. But the subsequent promises,
charged to have been made by the defendant, certainly would
prevent the statute from being applied as a bar if admitted to be
true.

It is an established principle, that where any allegation of the
hill would avoid the bar created by the statute, such allegation
must be specially denied by an answer in support of the plea; for
otherwise, it will be taken as true, and the plea can then be no
bar; because it will appear upon the face of the proceedings to
30 1B.