Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-05-29

Drought, an adverse possession Of vee aneurs Il 70
4lareo 70 give title under void paroI gift of slaves
tbs Nv. own Jaw and not thar Of Texas, must govern
N IN 0selsion Of the case. it sa- = 4-aHt
Inc counsel on beth sides refr 10 ,o,v,s Corf,;o4
sec. 5s2, but they differ in their under
| 0s1 mr VI the import of that authority
-. 1 Tor the defendants admit that if botR
Raxas .esh resident within the jurisdiction of
law OF that State to compiets ,ha ~ 49, 49,, .t
acquired py tne possessor might be at nm bv 10
compslnants IN our Courts in the nresent cass an5
= recovery Of the slaves be elected by force
But for as much as Joshua Barton no.
of Tennessee, and not subject to the irr;sd,t; -
laws of Texas, during the period the sa~ss -;
the adverse possession of David A. Barton In the
State is is denied that any such effect can he r5;
Gated of the statute of that State. Mr.. Story nnt
this case suppose personal property is sdveraeiv
held in State for period beyond that prescribed
by the laws Of that State and after that period has
elapsed the possession should remove into another
State, which has longer period of prescription, or
Is without any prescription, could the original
owner assert title there against the possessor
whose title, by the local law. and the lapse of time
had become final and conclusive before the reno
val! 1t has certainly been thought says the author
that in such case the title of the possessor cannot
be imPugned. See sec. 5s2, and cases referred to
in note 2. sf asasfs II a. ..fa.
The case supposed above, as we understand the
author, is In principle precisely the present case.
Every sovereignty possesses the undoubted power
to regulate the rights of property situate within its
own jurisdiction. ~
Il may limit all rights of action to certain pre-
scrloed periods and may ordain that after the ex-
pration of the periods thus prescribed notonly the
right OF action, but the claim and title likewise
shall be extinguished. 5-.- 80
AND II positive title to property be thus ac-
CURED and perfected by the local law of the place
where situate at the time upon what sound princi-
pie can it be maintained that such title can be effect
ed or defeated by the removal Of the property 20
another country by the possessor or by its removal
by another without his consent? |
In such case, can it be maintained whether or |
not the former ewner was resident within the lu-
risdictlon BY whose local law the possessor had /
become vested with absolute title to the proper
ty? If it be SAID that the former owner, by re- |
siding within the jurisdiction during the period pre-
scribed, voluntarily subjected himself to the opera
ton of the local laws of the place, and therefore
cannot complain that his right is taken away by /
those laws, as the result of his own laches may It
not be said. with quite much and force of
that, by knowingly suffering his proper
~ TO be taken and to remain within the jurisdlc-
Lion during the period prescribed by the LEGAL law
ne thereby Voluntarily subjected his property and
rights to the operation of such local laws? In the
after case, much as in the former the loss of his
night is the result of his own laehes. |
Our conclusion, therefore is that under the law
IF Texas the title of Joshua Barton. though not 4
resident Of that State, was extinguished and the
title perfected In David A. Barton and that the
tile thus acquired may be set up by the complain
lnts in the Courts of this State against those claim
ng the slaves by the subsequent disposition of them
made by Joshua Barton.
Decree affirmed. MCKINNEY.
correct copy: J. P. CLARK, Clerk.