Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1849-07-17
TuE RICHMOND ENQUIRER.
Tile IS, chapter l49-Limitation OF SUITS.
Section 5-Limitation OF personal &C ions Sc

neraiy.
Mr. PRICE moved % amend this section so a,
to limit actions in the country 10 nfe years ah0
merchants accounts with inhl'idusis 70 'Uo ~
stead Of ,hres years. The effect would NC 70 III
ducc carly settlements with merchants, anu &c
prevent an individual from beln5 in'oi'ea w
| fer under a longer settlement.
| Mr.. MONCUaEo OF 5 said there was 10 cha"S.
/ OF the .ib.a ion AS 10 bonds an notes-uu, ~
was change as 10 open accounts eeneiaHJ' :.
,ni,ina ,ile,n TO three years, IS reasonable ave
race Ii gives the advantages Of one year 10 1n'
| MERCHANTS. Mr.. NJ :aid this provision wa' u
accordance s i.h the provision in ano'heI seoIIol
| Tor lie eenal payment CT deceGcnts ceb1S, auO
| should { c retained
/ Mr. PRICE ,houghtwo years long enough io'
he merchant 10 bIing his suit, and We should re-
store the old law.
Mr. BURDETT sustained me motion. :,
| Mr.. SCOTT thought the merchants shou'o
| MOI be put on worse footing than any onei
clnss-and if We look al their transactions. lhey
! (,he merchants,) will compare ad7aniaseousy
| with those OF any other class. There IS ho'hins
mere destructive Than The loss OF his character ioi
.aifBsss-aud he Legislature has no usihsa ",
| in poiriil. he finer 81 suspicion ~ mem. iIe
req son for The discrimination aoains' merchants
| has ceased while he Discrimination CONTINUES
| But 7lolc, The mcrchaE acconal ! no ioie'i $. :
dence IN a cour; Tins discfiGnaiio'' W h's 'a'"'
/ is taken away, and Why >iU1li We no -" ,ah'
| away The discrimination against him. IN Inning
his rights ot actlohl Mr.. ;. aP7tal,a - t!'
| House 10 remove tins tiscfimina ion against 'his
worthy, intelligent and homes, cla>' y GU
He (Nr. 81 PERSONAL; p,e.cdei he 'iEifau-h
OF I'VE yeas. a, appllsi 10 III clas,e-- hu, ra-
tner than agree 10 The Gi>crmiua ieh deaihss 'he
merchants, he should SUSAN The Limitation "
| three years as appiIei q all.
Mir PRICE G,sciaiIDed any impu'alioh ~ we
mercantile ciass-b ul he thought !; "ouu ~,
! tGce early Settlements Gy sho:eni1s me ti'ne u
q merchants bringing suit.
MIR. HARRISON Of Loudoun, thought there
was good sense in the determination t!a~h III
the section between deb,s evidenced by writing
and those not 10 writing because Il would :"
much 10 secure he properly d dead men. bu'
be could see no justification tor Inc discIimihd-
ton against merchants.
Mr.. PRICES anne n1men; extending me liii'l'
alton on accounts generally tom three yeaIs 70
Gus, was agreed H. ayes -, noes 81. Mr.. /. gave
notice that he wouli move IN amendment III r.
| gard 10 merchants accounts.
| Mr.. FERGUSON said there was no reason
Tor extending The Limitation Oh rea actions lfoai
IA 10 20 years. The people had noi asked lo!
this change oi policy, and he moved 70 Grange
| the limitation in The Code from twenty 10 JDtssH
years. He thought fifteen years long enough 70
| allow any person 10 make an entry on, or of'h5
an aclon 10 IecoYer, any land. dc hmse!l pre-
! ieHed ten years.
MIR. LANE Of Lee suegesle! fourteen years as
| the present la "a.
Mr. FERGUSON would chcerluliy do SCI ba!
upon consultation with members IRON he v est,
| he had novel 10.
Mr. BASEL warmly sustained lie amend
rent as emiacn!ly just 10 the sellers IN inc
| West.
| MIR PRICE would checrfully vote Tor fifteen
| wears. rs inst medium. lie agreed with lis
| friend from Harrison, lha: oeite-, who held his
| land in Ter he honest belief that The i!e was
good, improved The land, &c, should mol be sub
ec,cd 10 luis ion after such reasonable period.
| Mr. SCOTT sad the Courts ct equity would
moi entertain an action tor lani a:ler The expifa-
non OF twenty years. Those CoufIs VIII, he pre-
sumei rcea II themselves IS bound 10 follow me
| law on this sutleci--ard The same provision
| should be extended bo. % ConfIs Of ellEy and
law. MIR agreed with he Rsyisors IL sys-
! tenn OF Limitations, winch woui operate Uniform
" Throughout. Virginia, IN all cases. lie Wund
acQuiesce in tie proposed Iimla Ion o; hteen
| years.
Mr. FEaGUSON'S Amendment was agreed
10, I'D inc chapter was formally amenced IN Sc
veal portions, 10 conform IL The chaLse.
Mr. FERGUSON commented on the 9Th sec.
lion O. chap,er las, Of action for insalilng
words" and suggested an amendment. 50 as 10
allow Justification 10 be pleaded. uadrr me
'ecision oil Inc Coart 81 Appeals, where the
wor,.s are no. aciiOnab.c al cCnnon law, bui
mad. ac,ionatie by salute, the party canno, us
uy. H. 10 oac action q SANDER, }oH permit me
patty 10 p.ead The ,fuh Of the words, you should
90 50 IN every action Ct slander Hr saw no
reason for The distinction w!icl was Sd ! 10 have
gicwl OF! 81 The duell!ng law. We saon'd e.
her aloW Justification. or refuse II equally N
every case.
no motion was made on iic snijsct
Section li;h, 4 chaper "a factors md agents,
provides iaal, i! person ..aas1c's business =
agent "!acot,' "aul Company" All Ia! %
disclose he name G! his principal or raT'rcr all
the properly, STOCK, and >!osi II csf:on, shall, as
IL me creditors 81 any such person. &c liable 70
he deb If such person.
On motion OF MIR IRVING. The section was 50
arerird as 70 insert 'ihrly days" after he word
"fail"
Mr. IRVING moved 10 amend The same sec
ion, 50 as apply 10 debts "contraciPd alter shch
age /; commenced" Mr. ]. sail hat, as me
section Eow stood, Il would lead 10 coiinsioa D.
tween the aecn! ami his old Creditors, 10 lie 'ac.
Tltlce o. thuse persons lOr HuJli u. dIts - 6-''
Mr. MONCURE OF S. saw no. he siigh's
reason Tor making any distinction oei "cen
The oil. creditors and tic hex. TIE obi Ct OF ne
section was 20 pregeal fraud, and, therefore, 70
require him 10 pub .h 70 the world The name 81
the principal or partner, ~ else 20 make The goods
81, liable 10 al. his tch.s. The subsequent ere
d,t,rs act with their eyes open, and i is Their
,aul, il they do lot take means 10 see hat NJ
ac.s honestly ani ahovehoam Mr. NJ Jealous.
10 pro,esicd against lie injustice and inp5!icy OF
,be amendment The oficinal creditors contract
ID with person, on tae faith Of his being then,
or eiwaris, able 10 meet his engagements.
Mr.. IRVING said The section made the goods
Liable Tor The debts Of perscn-, contracted &C.
fore he had eve. heard Of the new principal,
whose ageat he is. Mr. l. con.ended That he
section was wrong III treating The case az
fraud and thai there maElicsiiy should D. o;s-
uncl,on between the case ol dept due cfe-
dilor twenty years back, MO never khe" any
thing Of the goods, and the cfed'tors VINO trisl
him on The faith OF the goods. IL was no' just
that The properly Of the princlpa should DC CON
G,raled through the failure OF The agent 10 Pa2'
lish his principal. WHO may have instructed MN
) do % Mr.. cited case IL Richmond
where he old United States Bank came with
IN old debt and broke up an agent, aud Gu; oct
The new credii.Ts.
hir. LANCASTER citfd case, in which the
amendment of Mr.. Irving would lead 10 lie
greatest frauds, in allowing a man 10 obtain
credit 10 large amount, aud then stopping
business.
NJ. IRVING said there was nothing IN Inc
case, and asked the gentleman to name another
Mr. MAYO opposed The amendment. mo
law did 10, Apply 70 indyidual cases. out to sc.
81. - ,I,Il h.. tnEnT IN
Cd of The persons with whom they act. The ct
feet Of lie section in requiring the name 10 be
nut on he sisn, is 10 protect the property agans!
old creditors; and Mr.. lrvins's amendment
would dclea, his object.
Mr. SCOTT thought the section should DC
altered. Ii, purpose vas 10 submit 10 lIaohiy
t,r ali the debts of an agent, the property OF his
principal whether the debts be contracted DC
rtx.FI ho