case OUGHTERLONEY against earl powis may see smith v porter Binney U S Q where  a trust be create for payment of debt whether it let we in debt bar by the  statute of limitation S c Cox ms e e nom Acherloney v powis Michael Kencaid  that November draw a bill of exchange on Lord Montgomery for pound Payable to  William dundass or order which be endorse to plaintiff Lord Montgomery accept  the bill but it be afterward protest for nonpayment in April Lord Montgomery  die have by will devise his real estate in trust to pay his just debt bill by  plaintiff to be satisfy the pound under the trust in the will two question be  make saint whether payment be to be presume from the great length of time d  whether the demand which be bar by the statute of limitation be revive by the  trust ambler er p Lord Hardwicke chancellor after argument I be very glad this  cause do not turn on the second question for I shall be under some difficulty  to determine it after the case of Lord Stafford in the house of lord for that  in some measure shake the determination which be before that where a trust be  create for payment of debt it let we in those debt which be bar by the statute  and many case have be on that head though I own I have often wonder how they  come to be so that a man shall be supposed to mean payment of that which he  have not satisfy be due or which he have refuse himself to ambler pay many  reason have be give but the true one be that a debt though bar by the statute  be a just debt a promise will revive it be a good consideration and that prove  that the debt be not destroy in assumpsit at law the defendant can plead non  assumpsit general and give the length of time in evidence but must plead non  assumpsit infra sex aged in Lord holt time it come in question in a more  strict way on nit debit but the court hold the plea to be ill because the debt  subsist though the remedy be bar it be go a great way to let in debt which be  bar by statute to affect real estate by such general word if this case depend  on that point I shall take time to consider of it but the other question be so  clear for presumption of payment from length of time that I evil not send it  to law to be try it give the great weight as be a bill of exchange a  mercantile transaction which ought to be pursue with expedition and the  plaintiff have a right to demand the money of three person if the court after  such a length of time shall suffer the demand to be set up against any one of  they it will be attend with great inconvenience question whether here be  sufficient to presume satisfaction by Lord Montgomery Kencaid or dundass there  be a reasonable evidence give to suppose payment by as Lord Montgomery No  pretence or proof of any demand be ever make of this money and though Lord  Montgomery be great distress with debt and be charge in gaol for pound yet in  he be discharge and after his father death have a very large estate though  great encumber it will be a dangerous rule to lie down that if a nobleman or  other person estate be great involve a creditor may claim a debt after thirty  year though no demand have be make of it and the debtor be visible and to be  meet with it have be prove Lord Montgomery keep a house and a large family in  red lion street and be easy of access and ambler go to place of public resort  there be no pretence he be not able to pay such a debt as plaintiff demand he  pay his tradesman bill once in every year it be not possible to believe that  the plaintiff who be a merchant and reside at London during that time shall  not apply to he for that debt as to Kencaid if I be to send this cause to  trial there must be a account first take between plaintiff and Kencaid there  be deal between they and plaintiff give credit in his book for this sum when  pay non constant how the account between they stand and though it be slight  swear that Kencaid die insolvent yet it appear in proof that plaintiff receive  pound out of his effect after his death No evidence to prove dundass have not  pay the money what be read out of a deed relate only to bill of exchange on  lady mary Herbert account here be sufficient for the court to presume  satisfaction by somebody bill dismiss note the editor be unable to meet with  any entry of this case in the registrar book although the question whether a  devise of real estate in trust for payment of debt revive a debt bar by the  statute of limitation have be incidental notice in several case it be not till  the case of Burke v Jones that the court be call upon to give a express  decision on the point in that case sir t plumer after review all the previous  case decide that such a devise do not let in debt bar by the statute see Ves b  see ex part Bewdney Ves see executor of Fergus v gore Sch Lef ambler er p