I doubt whether an admission oS She debt by the administrator will take the case out of the act of fim nations; for the admission presupposes a promise made with» 2a three years, and how can tais be when the intestate has bees dead ten yearn? If it were true that an admission of the debt did take the case out of the act, and it could not he given in evidence at all unless allowed of upon such a replication, 1 should think that a strong argument for admitting the evidence. But the premises are not correct 5 it is not true that a count upon the “intestates promise, and upon that of the administrator to pay the debt of the intestate snay not be joined; the contrary is directly proved by the case cised from II. Eh líe. 104; where the administrator upon an imbnul compulassei and promise thereon, was held liable de bonis tesiaioris. ' The other cases cited, which state that he is bound ds bonis propriis, are where the consideration for the promise arose after the death of the intestate, and in the time of the administrator : here the promise was on a consideration arising its, the tim.e of the. intestate. The casks are recosí» ciieable.
The verdict founded on the admission of the evidence was sefe aside, and leave given to the plaintiff’s counsel to add, % count.: ihe plaintiff paying costs, up to this time.