Limitation—of taw of JFebrum'y 10,1849. An action of debt on promissory notes made out of this State, and the cause of action on which accrued out of this State, before the passage of the limitation law of February 10, 1849, was not affected by any statute of limitation in force in this State.
Writ of Error to the Superior Court of Chicago; the Hon. John M. Wilson, Chief Justice, presiding.
This was an action of debt, commenced January 6, 1860, on a promissory note made out of this State, the cause of action accruing out of this State, and which matured October 4, 1843, of which the following is a copy:
“£96 15s. 2d. c’y. Kingston, August 4th, 1843.
“ Two months after date, I promise to pay Messrs. Briggs & Lasher, or order, the sum of ninety-six pounds, fifteen shillings and two pence currency, for value received.
“THOMAS MILKER.”
*350The statute of limitatious was pleaded and the issues were submitted to a jury, and verdict rendered for plaintiff in the court below, and judgment entered accordingly, and the defendant brings the cause to this court on writ of error, and the question presented is, whether any statute of limitations was in force in this State affecting the note sued upon.
Mr. J. W. Waughop, for the plaintiff in error.
Mr. John H. Thompson, for the defendant in error.
Per Curiam :
It was decided in the case of Campbell v. Harris, 30 Ill. 395, that the action of debt on promissory notes made out of this State, and the cause of action on which accrued out of this State, before the passage of the limitation law of February 10, 1819, was not affected by any statute of limitation in force in this State. This case is precisely like that, and must be governed by the decision in that case.
The judgment of the court below must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.