Arnold White, C.J.

1. Under Exhibit A the defendants mortgaged to the plaintiff a house and a promissory note which had been executed to the defendants by a third party as security for money owing by the defendants to the plaintiffs. The promissory note was not endorsed to the plaintiffs. It became time barred, and the question is whether on the taking of accounts the plaintiffs should be debited with the amount due on the note. It was not suggested that the plaintiffs could sue on the note- It was contended that the note was evidence of a pre-existing debt due by the 3rd party to the defendants, that that debt was by the mortgagee assigned to the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs being the parties who were entitled to sue for the assigned debt were under an obligation to the defendants to do so before the right to recover the debt became barred by limitation. The promissory note refers to a pre-existing debt due by the 3rd party to the defendants, but I have had some doubt whether on the documents alone coupled with the fact that the maker of the note attested the mortgage to the plaintiffs-and that is all we have to go on-there is evidence of a pre-existing debt. No attem