
2 U.S. 264 (____)
2 Dall. 264
STILES, Plf. in Er.
versus
DONALDSON.
Supreme Court of United States.

*265 Ingersoll, for the Defendant in Error.
Condy, for the Plaintiff in Error.
But THE COURT were, unanimously, of opinion, that the accounts, on which the set-off had been claimed, were not within the act of Limitations; and that the Common Pleas had done right in admitting the evidence offered by the defendant.
Judgment affirmed.
