The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1859-03-02

fence.
This view Of the case disposes Of IT, and
renders it unnecessary to consider the de-
fence Of the statute of limitations.
The decree must be reversed and the
bill dismissed. HANDY.
s-la W.JFear-, Admir- vs.. Gorge A. sykes.
This action was brought " the plaintiff
in error to recover from 'he defendant
female slave in his possession. alleged
TO be the property OF the pa!nt.if intcs-
tate
II appears by the record that the slave
in controversy, had been thc property OF
one John Chi-m, in the ~tEe Of Alabama.
prior to and during the yea, 1889, and on
the 10th of September Of that year that
Chism executed a bill of sale for her to
the plaintiffs intestate. Hanaord j. Fears
that on the 18th October Of tho same
year, Chl~m executed bill O. sale lar the
slave, for valuable consideration. 70 one
Lewis g.. Garrett who. during that wear,
hadhpr i'm open and public possession in
the State of Alabama. and continued I'm
| possession there until August, l~5.. when
! he sold her to the defendant for q valuable
consideration. who brought her O. this
State. and has continued in possession
There j. some evidence tending To show
| that when CLism sold the slave to Garrett.
! he took her from Fears possession without
authority and delivered her o Garrett. and
| that Fcar- was slcsir0u- of olragaiu.urUo--es
| sion of her. but was unable 20 find where
/ She was-yet ID is fully proved that Garrett
! had her in open and notorious possession
| in hotel Kept by hm in the town o..
| Tu-cumhia. in Alabama, for the greater
part of the time when he owned hCr.
/ claiming title to her Ii is further shown
/ that the plaintiffs intcstatc removed TO
| this state in the year 1872 and l>t3.
! The decision OF the case. under this
/ state of facts, depends upon the question
/ whether Garrett acquired q good title ia
! virtue of his adverse possession IN the
/ State OF Alabama, which l. available tl
the defendant.
II Is true that the statute Of limitations
| Of another State is not technically plead
ahl,as defence 90 demand sued for in
the courts of this State because tine dc.
! fence of such statute strictly pertains O.
the '.r far'-though to this rule there may
be exceptions. Yet whom title to person.
al property has been acquired under tn,
laws Of another State, ly reason of posses
sion held by @ party for such length o.
| time a. under those statutes renders hi.
| tiiIr unimpeachahie. such title NAV D.,
shown in this state. and viii be ayl.Lll,
90 the party having such possession tal
! the requisite time. and those claiming
| under him. In such case il is not tho
statute Of limitations Of another STAT.
l'that l. relied on OF pleaded. but the till,
! acquired uy operation Of such statute
and where a tide becomes perfect under
the laws of one State ii - valid in any
other State. shelly rs. Gay. II Whcl
362 Moselev vs.. Williams, How. so.
523.
1t appears to be the settled law Of Ala
| hama. that the statute of limitations o
| that State which bars the remedy for tL,
recovery Of personal property, also net
r upon the title and destroys the right o
, the party setting up claim against th,
s | person in possession. i>lms ". Garfield
> Ala. 800 Lays, Exe'r vs.. Lawson >
| Ala. 317
Hence it Is clear that the title of Gar
/ | rett could not be questioned by the plain
r till after a possession in Alabama 70
s about fourteen years. Nor is theque-t.ol
r affected by the fact that Fears remove,
I to this state before the bar had beoOm
I complete by the possession OF Garrett io
= the time prescribed byt statute. HarTet
continued to reside there and had tn
70 slave in possession, and could have beeI
= sued there at any time, notwithstanding
the removal of Fears; and it IS this whicI
+ bars the remedy and vests the right IL
e the possession, whether the person Settin
q up title against the possession reside
l. there or not. The non-residenCe of tn
h claimant does not appear to be enumcrs
ted as one of the exceptions IN IN
p statute, and there can be noreason why
It should be allowed, especially when n
e. was resident Of the State whore the ao
IS verse possession commenced, and 20 cor
% tinued for several years.
l. But it Is insisted that it was a suihcier
+ answer to the title of Garrett arising troI
o the statute of limitations: that ChisJ
" took the slave from the possession ot th
e plaintiffs intcstate fraudulently. and ca
g ried her away secretly, 50 that she coul
b. not be found
.c Howoysr these considerations migl
IF have operated in an action by the plalntl
.c against ChiSm if the slave had been in h
s. possession, they can have no effect upo
.c the title of Garrett, or of the deiondan
a derived from him. For aught that is a
.c legged, Garrett had no connection Wit
" the fraudulent taking. or the concca
" mcnt OF the slave: but he appears 10 ha'
a purchased her fairly and for full yalu
e. and to have had her in his possession.
b. q very public manner. The remedy
m the plaintiffs intostate against him w.
1r open and in no wise distracted during .
m the period Of his possession. His It'll
.h ! therefore. could not be affected by q
be- fraud of Chism, and it became uuimPeac
a able after his possession In! continue
Il. for the period of six years Urc-crihcd
M | the statute OF Alabama. That tide W
r. conveyed 10 the defendant, and Constit
i ! ted an ample defence to this action.
to Let the judgment be affirmed.
de- HANDY.