MORETON v. HARRISON. 497

26th August, 1828.—BLAND, Chancellor.—This case standing .
ready for hearing, and having been submitted on notes by the
respective solicitors, the proceedings were read and considered.

It appears, that James Pattison in the year 1787, was seized in
fee of a tract of land called Hunfs Mount, containing one hundred
and sixty acres, the one half of which he held as his own, and
the other moiety in trust for the use of John Westeneys; that, on
the 24th of December 1787, they sold this land to Walter Ham-
son, for the sum of four pounds per acre, the one-fourth of the
purchase money to be paid on the first of May 1789, one other
fourth on the first of September following, and the other two-fourths
on the first of September 1790; the whole to bear interest from
the time Harrison obtained possession. Other stipulations are
contained in the contract, but they have no material bearing upon
the matters put in issue between the parties to this suit. The land
was accordingly delivered to Harrison on the 24th of December
1787, and he has had peaceable possession of it ever since. He
made several partial payments, the last of which was on the 16th
of October 1793, but there is no proof, that he ever made any
other or further payments since that time. This contract and these
payments are shewn by a bond, marked as the plaintiffs' exhibit A,
given by Harrison to Pattison and Westeneys, dated on the 24th of
December 1787, with the acknowledgements of the payments
endorsed thereon. Some time after these transactions Pattison
and Westeneys died.

The defendant in his answer admits the contract for the land,
and his possession of it as stated in the bill, but he says, that in
pursuance of his contract he made, at different times, considerable
payments, but from the length of time is unable to state the precise
amount of each; and does not admit, that he has obtained credit
for all he has paid; nor can he admit, that any part of the pur-
chase money is due from him; and he denies that he has admitted
to any one, that any part of said money was due, or that he has
promised at any time to pay the same. He then alleges and pleads
in bar of the plaintiffs' claim, that the debt, in the condition of the
writing obligatory mentioned, has been standing and in action
above twelve years before the institution of this suit, therefore he
relies upon the act of limitations. In addition to which he relies
upon the great lapse of time since the debt became due, and before
this suit was brought, as furnishing evidence of the payment of
the said debt. Thus it appears, that the defendant rests his defence

63