Washington telegraph., 1865-02-08

ring thereafter, in the absence Of language in
the statute compelling contrary constructions
aud all causes OF action existing at the time OF
the new act are governed to the length Of
time necessary TO constitute the bar, by the o!o
law and not by the new Couch v Mckee,
Ark. "A and other cases cited
When the compliments remedy il barred by
limitation he face OF the bill. and he fails 10
allege anything in avoidance of the defence and
the answer contains demurrer, the objection
IS fatal at the hearing. Sullivan v. Hadley, Ii
Ark. l29.
The old statute Of limitations eng Dig. G9s,
Sec. I'D provides thar no action for the recoY-
cry or possession ot lands should H. maintained.
unless ID appeared that the plaintiff his ancestor.
predecessor, or graHtOr was ssised possessed
OF them within ten years before the conlmsnes
Inent of such suit.
To bar the plaintiffs claim actual possessiso
must b. shown By the defendant: lapse of Iiae
and actual possession must unite.
The possession must be 80 open and eKcla-
siye AS I'd amount 10 GiSsi isn. oT custer or
termination Of the plaintiffs possession.
The acts Of the defendant must 10 plain and
unmistakable and such as prove his intsniiOs
to use the land as owner.
Where 4 buys Il Bs land under execution, hs
is barred il hr does not gain actual possvssioR
within ten years.
TO recover the possession or land, under oar
statute of ten years, the plaintiff must hsYe had
actual or constructive possession within tia;
time. II the execution purchaser does not Oh
tain actual possession. and the defendant in the
execution continues in il without aEreement
~ huii under him, the purchaser Las
structive possession.
Constructive possession by the plaintiff 10
sufficient and IL he proves that then the defea-
1ant must prsve by sufficient acts tina. more
than ten years before suit he took actual pos
session and continued it, adversely, so as to put
end TO the constructive possession; aud that
the latter has not been renewed.
Where the defendant in execution conveyed
tie lands in controversy with covenants wkicA
guar anteed. not only the absolute title ia fee,
but the immediate. continued and exclusive pos
session against al claims Of all persons what
ever, this the clearest possible declaration
that he claimed the lane, or al the iRteTesi b
evtr had in ID, as his own
Ii this conveyance and these covenants did
not tix thc character of bis possession ss &C.
from the beginning, they made il, q least,
adverse from that time forward
Where process is not sued out against several
parties, who have an existing legal interest ia
the lands whereof partition Is asked, the bill
must be dismissed al the hearing.
1he ease stood precisely as il the bill had 20.
sought I'd make them parties
One Of thu plaintiffs having sued ~ ezeeu-
trix and the other sole heir Of the frstatsT
for The defendants to admit this relationship be-
tween the plaintiffs and the tcstator. was not
to admit that the latter. being sole heir. had any
rights in the lands ia question under the will.
III peTsOL who has the ci m TO, or j. the
owner uf property real or personal. stands by
sud permits il 10 ~ sold, without giving notice
Of or asserting bis right, h. is rstopp-d from
setting up his claim or title against the pa.-
chaser Shall Y. Bscoe, - Ark l42
Where any of the parties have died after the
cause has been submitted in this court. the
court will order its decree TO relate 70 the day
OF submission. Affirmed