Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-05-29
Waters and wife vs. Barton and others

The complainant Elizabeth. is the only child of
David A. Barton, who died in Texas, in December,
1874 leaving the complainant his only Distribute,
| then an infant, of about elven months old.
This bill filed originally, in the name of her
next friend to recover two slaves, named Henry
| and Msck. claimed to have been the property of
said D. A Barton who died intestate. The alega-
tons and proof, in regard to the ownership of said
slaves by David A. Barton, is contradictory. For
the compliments it is alleged, that Joshua Barton
the f.ther of David A, made a pGroI gift, of the
slaves to him. The defendants deny the gift. and
allege that the slaves were merely loaned by the
father to his for the period of two years at the
expiration of which time they were TO be returned.
The proof shows, that in September, 1912. the
intestate David whose residence was in Texas was
on visit to his fathers family, who resided in Can
non county Tennessee; and that about to return
home Joshua Barton, his father, placed said sayes
iu his possession, to take with him to Texas that he
did take them with him to his home in Texas, where
he arrived about the 18th of October, 1872 and that
he retained possession of the slaves, and claimed
them as his own property from that date, until his
death. which happened on the 10th of December,
lS44 being period of more than too years, and
that after his death they came into the possession
of the administrator of his estate who delivered
them into the custody Of the guardian of the com
painant with whom they remained until November
1886 when by the procurement of Joshua Barton,
they were enticed away and brought to Tennessee.
and taken possession of by Joshua Barton, who
claimed them his property and who shortly after
wards delivered the slave Mack into the possession
of his son-in-law, the defendant Ramsey, who stil
has him in his possessions and at later period. he
disposed of Henry, to his son. the defendant, VIII
liam who still retains him .. g..
Joshua Barton died in the Spring of 1858; that
defendant William, is the personal representative
of his estate and the other defendants are the lega
tees and devisees under his WILL
We do not deem it necessary to comment upon the
conflicting testimony. in detail, with the view Of
sustaining conclusion as TO its effect Suffice it
to say. that upon 3 review of all the evidence and
more especially the declarations OF Joshua Barton
as proved By Stokes and Farmer, ct the time the
slaves were brought back from Texas, in November,
ls45. The preponderance of the proof, In our
opinion, Is that the transanctiOn was gift and not
loan .of the slaves, by Joshua Barton, to his son.
David A.
This brings US to the question of law, arising up
on the facts stated: namely, whether or not under
the statute of limitations Of Texas David A Barton
acquired such title to the slaves will entitle the
complainants sueng IN hIs rlghtto recover them in
the courts of this State.
By the statute of Texas, suit must be commenced,
in case like this present, "wIthin too years. next
after the cause of such action suit, and not af
terri See Hartleys Dig Art. 2377. And this stat
ute .applies no less to foreign, than to domestes
claims" ID. Art. 1888
In the construction of this statute Il has been de-
clared by the Supreme Court of that State that its
effect is not only to bar the rights of action Of the
former owner but also, TO extnguish his right; and
to vest the right of property absolutely in the sd-
verse possession; that if after the bar had been
completed the former owner should regain the pos
sesion the possessor might maintain scton against
him for the recovery of the property See 1exAs
For the defendants it is insisted that in as much
as by the statute Of this STATE, where the SUIT =