delivered the opinion of the court.
This wаs an action of assumpsit upоn two promissory notes, and an account for services as рhysician and surgeon. Plea of non assumpsit, and a special plea that the account had not accrued within three years, were filed by the defendants.
A dеmurrer to the special plea of limitation was properly sustained by the court below. The statutory limitation of three years wаs not applicable to this case.
It becomes unnecessary to examine the propriety of the charges of the court below to the jury respeсting the assignment of one of the notes sued upon in this action. The defence sought to be made by virtuе of the statute of 1840, prohibiting the transfer of their bills receivable and evidences of debt, by banks, could not be sustained under the generаl issue. Such a defence cоuld only be reached by plea in abatement. Planters Bank v. Sharp, 4 S. & M. 27.
The evidence, however, upon which the jury found for the plaintiff some portion оf the account for medical and surgical services, seems еxtremely vague and uncertain. The only witness called by the plaintiff tо establish this account, could speak neither as to the time or the character of the sеrvices charged, and, in point of law, gave no testimony as to the account filed. It is true, that it is difficult for accounts of this
Judgment reversed, and new trial awarded.