Conoway's Adm'rs. v. Spicer's Ex'x

charged the jury that an express promise to pay the debt was not necessary to revive a debt barred by limitation, in case of an administrator, more than in any other case; but there must be a distinct acknowledgment or recognition of an existing debt, such as admits an obligation on the part of the estate, and involves an implied promise to pay it, founded on such recognized obligation; and that this acknowledgment must be by all the administrators, or by one acting for and by the authority of the others; and left it to the jury to say, whether, on the proof, they believed that the admission here relied on was made by both the administrators. The reason was, that the declaration counted on a debt due from the estate and an implied promise by both the administrators to pay it, which was not proved by the admission of only one of the administrators. (4 Harr. Rep., 372, Chambers vs. Fennemore’s adm’rs., and the cases there cited.)

. The jury found for the plaintiff, $36 54, and the court refused a rule to set aside the verdict.