The Chief Justice.-The facts necessary for appreciating the question of law which arises in this appeal may be briefly stated. The appellant filed a suit to recover amounts due for principal and interest under three promissory notes dated 21st August, 1929, 28th August, 1929 and 4th September, 1929. The suit was filed on 9th August, 1944. The appellant relied upon four endorsements of payment to save the claim from the bar of limitation. The last of such endorsements was made on 9th August, 1941. It has been found by both the Courts below that these endorsements are of “open payments” which would not save the claim from the bar of limitation under section 20 of the Limitation Act as it stood before the Amending Act XVI of 1942. The appeal was argued on that assumption. The contention on behalf of the appellant was that the amending Act applied to the suit and the endorsements would be sufficient within the meaning of section 20 as amended by it. Both the Courts held that the appellant could not rely upon the amending Act, because the claim to recover the amounts due under the suit promissory notes became barred by limitation prior to the coming into force of the amending Ac