JUDGMENT

Richard Garth, C.J. - I confess that I have considerable doubt as to the correctness of the judgment of the Court below; but as my learned colleague thinks that the judgment is right, and as I find that, on the Original Side of the Court, it has been held by Mr. Justice WILSON that, under the Act of 1877, six years is the proper period of limitation in the case of a registered bond, I am unwilling, where the meaning of the Legislature is really doubtful, to divide the Court upon a question of limitation.

In one sense, of course, every suit for a breach of contract is a suit for compensation; but I should have thought that, in ordinary legal parlance, a suit to recover money due upon a bond (especially having regard to the form of a single bond in this country), would be a suit for a debt or sum certain; whilst on the other hand, a suit for compensation for breach of contract (Article 116), meant a suit for unliquidated damages.

But there is no doubt that, under the Acts of 1859 and 1871, the period of limitation in the case of a bond, or other contract in writing registered, was six years ; and that the people of this country have for years past understood that an unregistere