Star.
London, England, 1829-06-29 00:00:00

there shall not be a new •period of limitation from the
expiratif n of the lease. The receipts of rents and profits
is esrivalent to the occupation of the soil; the per'
who is in the receipt of them can do nothing mord%
establish his right, and the person to whom they are
denied is virtually dispossessed. Where no rent, or only
a nominal teat, is reserved, very slight negligence can
be imputed to the reversioner in merely not requiring a
recognition of his title from the tenant, and in such
• cases, till the expiration of the lease, we think there
should rfOt be a commencement of adverse possession
to bar the landlord. Any rent less than twenty shil-
lings a year may for this purpose be considered nominal.
The anomaly, that when the younger brother or other
remote heirs enters on the death of the ancestor, his pos-
session is not adverse to the title of the other brother,
appears to lead to uncertainty, and may be usefully
abolished.
It would be desirable to permit a Jury, under certain
circumstances, to find the fact of adverse possession in
the cases of tenants in common, joint tenants, and co-
'sameness, without proof of actual ouster.
We likewise think it would be proper to enact, that
where one individual his several estates in the same
land, when his right of entry is barred as to one estate
it shall be barred as to all; at present, he and those
claiming under him have a new period of twenty years
on the vesting in possession of each estate.
By the present law there -is no limit to-actions of
escheat, of waste, or of dower while the widow lives.—
If real actions are abolishedvand the lord and the re-
rersioner or remainder-man oust of coarse pursue their
• remedy by ejectment within twenty years, but for the
- dowiess a special enactment will be necessary, as till
dower is assigned she has oo right of entry. Cases have
heen, stated to us in which upon sales considerable delay
and expense have been occasioned by searches to ascer-
tain the deaths of women who once were actually dow-
able. or cannot be shown not to have been dowable out
of the land. The evil seems. to be of frequent occur-
rence. There can be no hardship in requiring the
svidow to commence t er shit within twenty years from
the death of her husband. As she can hardly be igno-
rai•t of her rights, were it not for breaking in upon the
• uniformity of the law, a shorter period even might
without injustice be preatibed. We propose limiting
the recovering of arrears of dower to six years.
In case of intestacy it has been decided that, as to all
rights' occurring after the death of the intestate, the
Statutes of Limitation only begin to run from the grant
of administration. Hence a right to a chattel interest
in lands may be kept alive, notwithstanding adverse
possession, to the expiration of the term, however long ;
• and instances have occurred of serious practical incon-
venience from this state of the.law. It seems to us that,
. with, respect to chattel interests in land, the period of
limitation should begin to run from the time When the
right of entry has ari-en, and might have been acquired
by taleng out letters of admiuistration. The next of
kin and creditors of the in•e-tare, we think, cannot
justly complain, if for twenty years they have neglected
their tights; and great injustice might be done to the
party in pos-ession by allowing a stale claim to be
brought forward after a longer lapse of time.
W.! here take occasion to observe that the objections
which may he advanced to our proposal of abridging
the longer periods of limitation, as well as of abolishing
fine Allti nonclaim, will be materially lessened if a gene-
ral registry shall be established. The means of knowing
the state of vie title to any proptrtV will then be afforded
to 'every claimant, and long delay in prosecuting a
• claim will he both less likely to happen, and less en-
titled to ilidolgence.
The various Statutes of Limitation which have been
hitherto passed in this country (with the, xception of an
enactment in 63 Gen. S. c. 127, s. 5. confining snits for
recovering the value of tithes to a period of biz years)
apply only to legal remedies,, and therefore have no
direct operation on equitable estates or interests. But
according to the maxim that "Equity follows tie Law."
Courts of Equity, in analogy to the Statutes of Limi-
tation, have laid down rules by which they have rel used
relief, where if the estate of the claimant were legit in-
stead of equitable, lapse of time would be a bar to a
legal remedy. They have disregarded the periods of
sixty, fifty, and thirty years allowed for bringing writs
alight and writs of entry, and (as it is now generally
enders rind) have adopted as the limit of their relief the
• period of twenty years given by the statute of 21 Jac.
1, c. 16, for making an entry on lands or bringing an
ejectment—adhering likewise to the statutable provisions
respecting di-abilities—bat excepting certain cases al.
tested by° fraud or trust.
The question arises whether the direct operation of
the Statutes of Limitation should still be confined to
legal remedies. or whether there should not be express
legislative enactments upon this subject applicable
equitable estates and interests. As *dented to above,
the Legislature has already begun to apply limitition
to suits in equity. and we conceive that this system may
now be civantapeously acted upon. When the ancient
Statutes of Limitation passed. equitable jurisdiction was
- of small account; but a very large proportion of the
• Real Property of the country is now subject to that
iurisdiction, and there seems no sufficient reason why
the regulation of such property should continue to be
left to the variable discretion of a Judge. A case very
recently occurred where as estate subjett to a mortgage
in fee being in settlement. with an ultimate limitation
to the right heirs of a particular person, a stranger, on
the expiration of the nrevicus estate, entered, claiming'
to be entitled under the limitation, and he and his son
upon his death, continued in quiet possession, paying
Interest on the mortgage for twenty years. After a
difference of opinion bet I% een Judges of great eminence,
it was held that the devisee of the person really entitled
.. under the limitation was barred by lapse cof lime. 1 his
decision, although generally approved of, has been cen-
tered by some, and the doctrine founded upon it may
be qualified in subsequent cases. Hence, without a
positive law to refer to, some uncertainty and uneasiness
must prevail, and practising lawyers sometime- tind
it
impossible to give a coufident opiniou upon titles sub-
mitted to them.

• To be eontioued.)"
• Lnrdl4lAkt BISTISCIt. it is gated in letters from
India, is above to remove the mat of Government from Calcutta to
cue of tbe % t' Prowlams. The communications state, that
it is his lor*lip's Ante:anon. co 'lna return hem a sti.ll
which he is sheet to make to Melanie 80 Periwig to rec
amino his Council. and (as the (Vona Papers term it), the
" materiel " of government, to the Upper Prosaism& at
. advantages, it la supp Med, would argst (rpm soda a ebange. pow
that permission has been g yen to Europeans us bold land is their
own name.: A diorite could t»rtainly be chasm more congenial
to European tonoltutions, Cod a greater facility Weald be given of
communicating wish the pans of our terriaety Which most frequently
. revue the els:lance of Government. ,
li adny se noight the two criminal officers who went
tit pursuit of tie two &tiptoe of the 4th, or King's Own Regi
punt, who Ascended. horn Glasgow with about 1001. of the pay
of their Miocenee companie., returned Sifter an unsuccessful par-
'. spit. 7Rie diens learned. hcswever,tkat Um fugitives got °Why tine
ships:lvo lissrie,for, Aliee, on thi Werkday previous. They
pai tic Coptain 71. en& for their passages sad gave fictitious
a lclie one declatiog be came ltons Rosman)s and the other
thine Perry.
.