¶1 The bar of the statute of Limitations, seven-years, was not complete up to 11th of May, 1861, lacking about one month. And there were a series of statutes in-force from that time up to January, 1870, suspending the statute of Limitations. If this were so then the statute does not bar in this case. Johnson v. Winslow, 63 N. C. R. 552. It was, however, supposed by the defendant’s counsel, that the Act of the 10th of March, 1866, repealed the former statutes, and that the statute began to run and continued for three months up to the ordinance of 23rd of June, 1866, and that time completed the bar. But the counsel overlooked the Act of 21st of February, 1866, which suspended the statute up to January, 1867, so that the gap from March to June, never existed, as the Act of March did not repeal the Act of February.
¶2 It is not necessary that we should decide whether an Act suspending the statute of Limitations, retrospectively, is valid.
¶3 There is no error.
¶4 Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.