Campbell v. . Hester

Counsel

Haywood , for the defendant, argued that the defendant, being an executor, defending the estate from an old demand, was entitled to any indulgence the law could show; especially as the time limited for the distribution of the estate had expired before the present suit was brought. That Courts had frequently permitted the addition of a plea, where it furnished a substantial defense, and had no tendency to delay the plaintiff. That the act of limitation, having for its object the quiet of men's estates, and the prevention of litigation, was a wise and politic law, and notwithstanding the prejudice sometimes entertained against it, had been denominated by able Judges a just and beneficial statute. That in 1 Wils., 177, the defendant was allowed to add the plea of the statute of gaming, the object of which was to avoid the payment of a debt, to which he was bound by the ties of honor and conscience, though forbidden by a municipal regulation, on the ground of public policy. That the plea now offered would do justice in the case, and had been omitted only under the influence of a prevailing error. Norwood , for the plaintiff, admitted that in some cases the Courts had permitted a plea to be added, which amounted to a fair and honest defense, and which had been omitted, through surprise or inadvertence at taking the rules; but that such a plea as was now offered had been uniformly rejected, because its object, instead of a trial on the merits, was to bar the plaintiff, though his claim should be perfectly just. He cited Barnes, 352, 332. 2 Wils., 253.