¶1This was an action of assumpsit to recover a sum of money paid by plaintiff as surety on a promissory note for defendant.
¶2The statute of limitations, five years, was interposed as a defense, to which the plaintiff replied that the defendant had promised anew within five years.
¶3The verdict was for the plaintiff for $160, and judgment was rendered accordingly.
¶4We have carefully examined the evidence and are of opinion that it wholly fails to establish a new promise. Applying the rule as laid down in this State, we think the judgment should have been for defendant. Keener v. Crull, 19 Ill. 191; Carroll v. Forsyth, 69 Ill. 127; Wachter v. Albee, 80 Ill. 47; Haywood v. Gunn, 4 Ill. App. 161.
¶5_The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.
¶6Reversed and remanded.