case Lacon versus briggs July see smith v porter Binney U S A Jones v Scott  Russ my Cf in re Stephens Ch d a executor of a house steward to Lord Bradford  after a acquiescence of year set up a demand for a large sum due for business  do by his testator to which the representative of Lord Bradford insist on the  statute of limitation satisfaction to be presume from the length of time for  it be not to be imagine if any thing be real due to the plaintiff that he will  have be quiet under it the bill be bring to be let in as a creditor on Lord  bradford estate under a direction in a former cause the plaintiff  administrator de good non to his father who be steward or attorney to Henry  earl of Bradford from the year to insist that his father have several large  sum of money due to he but know Lord bradford aversion to business do not care  to press he to settle account especial as Lord Bradford who be lord lieutenant  of the county of Salop have promise to make he clerk f the peace atkins the  defendant sir Hugh Brigqs executor of Lord Bradford insist upon the statute of  limitation Mr attorney general counsel for the plaintiff argue that suppose  the statute of limitation be run yet that my Lord bradford will create a trust  of his real estate for the payment of his debt have take it out of the statute  for notwithstanding the plaintiff may be bar at law yet in equity it be a debt  in conscience and the will be in the nature of a new assumpsit Lord Hardwicke  put it upon the defendant counsel to show how this case differ from those  where a trust for payment of debt have revive the debt Mr solicitor general  for the trustee say that it must be a certain clear debt and not depend on a  account which a court of equity will admit to be a debt on such a trustestate  and to be take out by it from the statute of limitation from the death of  Lacon to the death of Lord Bradford be no less than seventeen year for Lacon  die in and Lord Bradford in and there be no proof of any application for the  pretend debt but they have acquiesce all this time another objection he insist  must be the expensiveness of take a account of such length and that the  staleness and improbability of the demand will make the court very unwilling  to direct such a account atkins er p my Lord bradford executor can after such  length of time check lacons account it be not possible to imagine that the  plaintiff will have lie by so many year if there have be any thingreally due  and therefore this alone be a strong argument for the defendant Mr brown in  reply for the plaintiff say none of the trustee have pretend that they have  find a state account among my Lord bradford paper which be a presumption that  there be no such account for if they have discover any such they will not have  rest altogether on the statute of limitation Lord chancellor a account be  demand at second hand by the representative of a house steward and it have be  insist that there be a open one between he and his lord atkins I be of opinion  that if I shall decree a account to be take in this case I shall make one of  the worst precedent chat a court of equity can make for disturb the peace of  family it be a demand clear bar by the statute of limitation both in law and  equity the defendant in I be answer admit that Mr dovey may tell he who be the  executor of Lacon after the death of the earl of Bradford that there be such a  account depend and money due to Lacon but then sir Hugh Briggs for cautious  confine his belief of the debt to the information of dovey and at the same  time insist on the statute now there must be a direct admission of a debt to  take it out of the statute of limitation though there have be several case at  law where this have not be hold sufficient unless it be likewise attend with a  express promise to pay Bland v Haselrig vent dean v crane salk but that may be  rather too hard see yea v Fouraker burr Cowp what the executor say here be  only his personal belief and notwithstanding he insist on the statute of  limitation in behalf of his testator for if a man say that a creditor tell he  there be something due he may give credit to it from the opinion he have of  his veracity and yet if he insist on the statute that will notwithstanding be  a bar to the demand the second question be on the trust create on the real  estate of the earl of Bradford it be very true where there be a trust of a  real estate for the payment of debt it have be hold to revive debt which have  be bar by the statute of limitation and that they be entitle to be pay as well  as the other creditor vide Blakeway v Strafford p W bro p c Jones v Stafford p  W anon salk Gofton v mill vern Andrews v brown Prec Charles Vaughan v guy mos  Legastick v Cowme ibidem trueman v Fenton Cowp Oughterloney v powis Amb but I  have often wonder how this rule at first prevail and judge have always grumble  at it though it be now establish in equity vide Lord Strafford case in the  house of lord February earl of Strafford v Blakeway bro p c it have be true  say that where real estate have be affect by such stale debt it be in a plain  and clear case and not to be charge in so lose a manner as this be with a debt  that must depend upon a account to be take atkins there be no evidence of any  demand or settle account in the lifetime of the steward nor of any demand or  request to settle the account from the death of the steward to Lord bradford  death which be seventeen year it be not probable any thing can be due to Mr  Lacon all that be pretend be that dovey his executor have the admission of one  of the trustee that it be a just debt the court in such a case as this ought  to presume satisfaction from length of time because it can be imagine if any  thing be real due to Lacon that he will have be quiet under it vide Sturt v  Mellish ante vol the court will lie the party under such difficulty in take  this account that it will be unequitable to direct it upon no other ground but  from the latitude and extensive construction which court of equity have put  upon trust on land for payment of debt beside as Lacon be a domestic steward  there must have be several large sum of money receive and pay without any  write or voucher between Lord Bradford and Lacon atkins er p therefore it be  impossible to direct a account without injustice be do to the defendant in  take the account upon all the circumstance then and after such great length of  time I be of opinion that this bill ought to be dismiss and it have be true  say that it will be charity to the party not to direct such a account but in  consideration of sir Hugh brigg admission that on the information of dovey he  do believe there may be a balance to Lacon I will dismiss the bill without  cost