The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1859-03-09

=
peached collaterally. The jurisdiction 5
must extend to the parties as well as to i
the subject natter {
The great reason why judgment should I
be regarded as thus conclusive is that
there may be an end OF litigation. "LT !
tais al Htcm." Public policy demands sub I
mission to judgments that have been fair
ly invoked. fully considered and finally
pronounced; but neither Justice public
policy, nor the organic law of this State
will sanction the denial of the right to
be heard by himself, or counsel, or both
To any citizen. The constitution declares
that political power is inherent in the
people; that all free governments are foun-
ded ON their authority, and established
for their benefit That even for crimes no
man shall be deprived of life, liberty. or
property, but bv due course of law. That
the Courts shall be open, and every person,
for injuries of every character, shall have
remedy by due course Of law and justice,
and right, shall be delivered without
sale. denial or delay, that no person shall
be debarred from prosecuting or defending
his cause before any tribunal in this State
In violation Of these rights and proli-
bitions designed to protect the liberty and
property OF the citizen, the Courts estab-
lished for his benefit and to administer
right and Justice without sale, denial, or
default" can pronounce no valid judy
mcnt. The opportunity, to avail himself Of
their rights, Is as essential as the rights
Themselves, and nseparably incident to
them; and hence this doctrine of notice is
applicable alike to all tribunals, and all |
judgments under one system. 1t cannot |
be tolerated that the doors Of Justice |
should he closed against a party who has |
never head that his rights were in dispute |
IN her Courts or had an opportunity to de |
tcnd them. The whole policy and prac- |
| tlce Of our Court, under the principles of |
| the organic law to which we have refer |
| red, rcprobat" and condemn such doc !
| trinc. The most liberal policy Is extend
ed to the citizen, whether plaintiff or de
fcndant, by our laws. Forms are abolish
| ed in pleading, amendments allowed. new
trials granted, bills of review, appeal and
writs Of error provided for, and Courts of
Equity with all their remedial powers es-
tablished, that right and justice may be
administered without denial. These rules
and principles are mandatory to all the
departments of government, and to none
more beneticially for the protection of
private rights. than to the judicial depart
| mcnt.
The hardship of these cases upon pur-
chasers at adm'r's sale. and the Dispute
tude in such titles, so frequently occur
ring, are urged upon us as reasons for re-
viewing the rule heretofore established.
Rightly considered there is no greater
hardship or disquetude resulting from
the disregard of the act Of the Legisla-
ture under which these sales are made
than from the disobedience and disregard
of other laws, human and divine. result
ing in loss of life, liberty, orproperty.
If msa, with all the means of intorma-
ton which the law has wisely afforded,
will not take the trouble to examine the
validity Of titles which they seek to ac-
quire, but trust to the good faith, as well
as legal knowledge of adm'rs, or to the
competency and integrity of the officers
| appointed by law, and neither examine
| the records for themselves, nor procure
competent legal advice always at hand.
| to know what they do, they should not eX-
: pect courts TO relieve them of the conse-
f duences of their own folly 1t is simply a
f | question between them and the heirs of
ten children. neither cognizant of their
= rights nor responsible for the errors and
: omissions complained of. Which shall
{ lose the title? Upon whom shall penalty
| fall7 Upon me disobeditrt nriuiT or the
5 | passive. ignorant minor?
We think the rule is wise. Just. well set
/ | tied and if disquietude results from its
j | observance, it Will generally fall on those
who, in all ages, have warred against the
r law: the neglectOrs of its wise and humane
e | precepts.
: We think, therefore, that the rejection
{ of this record, which was silent as to the
; posting and publication of citations is re-
quired by law, and showed no notice TO
I 1 -, t,l 4,v - ,f
J. | fered as authority for the sale 10y the adj
i mr. as well as the rejection of the evi-
l. dence of Earle a Falconer, intended,
I. doubtless, to supply by parol the omission
/ in the record. was proper. Was this evi'
e | dence lthe record and deed from Ander-
?, SOM admissible under the plea Of the
statute of limitations? is the remaining
n | point under the first head to be consi
e | dered
e The fact of possession, and the ono 0ni0,t
j. | with which il was commenced and cOntln
# ued. are questions distinct and separat,
g from the yaLdityot deeds and paper title
O. generally. That deed is even void fo
a want of some requisite of the law. as evi
Ie dencc Of conveyance of the legal title
b. does not render it incompetent to estab
lish cxtraneous facts Sunconnected with tn,
m question of a paper title, to which it ma,
Of | have relation. For instance, it is evidenc
in | Of the fact that such deed, although in
te / valid, was executed: showed that fdt
:. | to be a matter of controversy, as it is evi
Ie | dence of any other fact which it tends I
:. | establish, when such is the matter in j,
sc sue. Hence under the plea Of the stat
" | ute of limitations, generally void deco
rs record, or proceeding, may be introduce
H. to show the fact of the possession hel
II nd ha nun HR1t NJ 1P
such possession was taken, as iCtcccn n
g- parties to such deed and record or 9th,
ld conveyance, there could be no question {
as- the truth of this proposition, and as mel
rh acts and declarations of the vendee ten'
MT ing to show the character Of his profe
sion and to qualify and explain the cha
b. | actcr of that cotemporaneous act the
,ct must be admissible as a part of the res gf
re- tar, even when third parties are concerned
Is, We think, therefore, there was no err,
iu- in allowing this testimony TO 90 to ii
nd jury upon general principles. 1t is, hoy
n ever, much stronger when considered
reference to the peculiar provisions of Il
nd act Of 1874. 5th sect. relied on in tn
nd case, Hutch. Code, p. $50.
H. 1t is said, however, on the part Of Il
to plaintiff below, that the Judgment shou
nd be reversed, because of the admission
l." the testimony of 'feel, proving the val,
on of putting the apple and peach orchar
of on the land.
yer The statute allows the jury to offs
be- against any damages, assessed 10y them
ed | favor of the plain tiff, the value of all Vi
"a liable but not ornamental improvement
CHI We think this testimony was compete
er. for the consideration of the jury, as the
md is proof in the record that plaintiff clai
de- ed damages, and there was proof of t
in annual value of the land.
the 1t is insisted by both parties, that I
nds Court erred in giving the charge subn
as ted to the jury and in refusing their ch
liar ges respectively. The charge objected
ses. asserts that if any of the plaintiffs We
our OF age on the 24th of February. "A, tdi
'ate of the act of limitations and suit v
on, brought within three years from that da
els or if any were minors, at the date of q
ON act and suit was mot commenced in t
le- years after their coming of age; in eitl
and case, the jury viii find for the defends
;. As to them. But as to the plaintiffs "
erv- were under age, at the date of said ,
agal and had not reached their majority m
list- than five years, the jury should find
ner- them, as they had sued alone. From
the record, it appears that suit was instim
the on the 18th Sept. 1856:
ent; That Sarah Jane Carey was born
'cial October, lS22. James A. Root was b
cen 18th October, 1926 Harriet IL. Co
" was born Sth June. 1928. Marcaret
me me Root was born 18th December. 1881.
nee zabeth G. Root. was born 9th Nav. |,
ls'S Thomas j. Root was born jth Janu,
ana 1888. Sarah Jane married Miles Ca
leai- 25rd December. lS45 Harriet H., II
'hec ried - Couch. who died in the Spr
es OF of '56.
III n'1 It is insisted by defendants counsel
me this is Joint action 10y six plaintiffs,
mp the recovery could only have been Joih'
IN 1t is admitted. that the princlple est
Hshed in Iordon vs. MchelszeN et al.
and Mis-. y. 81. in relation to rent rr'ghts' t
that the disability of one or more JOINT own
the viii not save the rights of others, not
nmc- atFacted. from the operation of the sta
no tory bar: that when one joint owner
.uch barred, all are, has no application to re
ID or in this State, held by descent Under
Statutes of descent and partition, ther
. Of no substantial difference left between
and parceners and tenants in common. Oh
in cellor Kent, in the fourth volume of
at it Commentaries, says, that the distinct
. +In,,, NAV ha ,No,,siJaraI 10