The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1874-11-18

hHff'sHi
spru.luu neutrality-suspicious.
HHi there Wmll un N,f }fWa WNr
WnniIis aud twenty ono hHi in'fifrn-
ing LfrWfrn lhrWAfflaea Hnd il'f dAIr
nj MiugIug .hla suite
AifNiH Wiufi however There Do nil-
other sl.un ul ,He constitution NJ
40 which hHlr Hpnn lllr au.lHrI 4un
which, hls come ln WV ID.ite slufh
mg leurr ~ lHnnli john litnil
Brown, Sad anon CLOSER Investigations
~ isarf. 4 nrL Va, and WMNh Ifllt is
nIllHai NNWd.l WDHHM lllnis
Hud iuanne prlanHa eNAll unt Nr NHN.l
ul lheir right ut property w adverse
ppaspsslOu, nr lAW pl llmilnl ipll pl lpss
lhan seven years lrpiu ana amer vac
removal Ui parll and pll pl lllrlf re-
speaiiye legal dslbllilipr," = lNs'
liigr y ll2l,l
What elitcl does his eYlepiiun NJ
time in favor nf married WOMEN ANA
Infants from ffe w scrrH yeas nave
with reference W llla cpani me
statute commenced ip Wi AuBnal Hl
1850, II We count ont lhH period pl
sIspension named In the constitution
only one year I'VE months hlil we
days had run when lhls cpnalllUtllllhl
oHlensiun Waf made, Ana according
IA the rule laid down lu tho case oI
Guulier W, fWnklin Ieyu pii'h
counting lhr prupuuinpllp llHlr llii'lrf
enrn law, and Hulielrul ilmr luh not
onIB.d 10 constitute 70 bAl ln ldllnllll7
RWllou,
Goiug lmok hphInd tho constitution
~ 1850, and after examination ul lie
beat nu h0Hlic, ! conclude lllpl llNr
years had elapsed, Ia WhIrn lle aln'nie
ui Limitation hAl rum nuu iUnl wye,
| iWr, plffudWD an 0UiWai' htl Nr7lrl
before March so, 100 Whru lllo con
Alillll0n Of lhll WAa lalllled 10y cnn'
prefi, aud even before the pruolnluN-
! ton of the military commandment Ia
Juuuuty, lBlO,of DISQUALIFICATION thereof
hy vote Of the people,
.Iudlu Cooley III hl7 able work On
constitutional limitations, 4, 700, says
that title acquired Wy limllnllol u
"yr8led uH completely and perfectly,
aud IL az safe rom legislative Inter,
ference pe n would have boon II II hnd
been perfected IN the owner by WUlil
or any species Of Insurance." See
note lricrfing ~ summary OF late M
thOrltlps \ state C0nhl tuition can nu
more interfere with vested rights Than
u statutory law lGulduer w., s,lcphena,
Ills, (ronu,) 2aO's, AM lii iuO' y
"mll lillen acquired under our i've
yCnrs statute OF limitations h u WGifu
Hghi, and II could not he impaired ol
dCslrOycd by art H., see, II OF the con'
stliullon Of 1860, which undertakes To
suspend the running OF the statute re-
troncting frumJNnuN ~ 1851 to March
30, 1870, A constitution could not thu'
suspend the statute rclruncllycly, a
state Of war would suspend lhcW running
of the statute OF limitations, and III,
suprrmc court OF the United States
hive decided TINT all statutes Of linz
itaton were suspended during the late
war, Hanger W., Abbott u WullNrt
b32, Tho question arises, "when did
Che war commence aud when did II
end?n This question a. TO time, and
relating to limitation OF civll suits, ha'
been also definitely settled by the snm'
c0ur;, and Il Is held that I'm The stnIo 81
TeXus lhe war commenced April ~
1861, aud ended August -, 1850, Adj
Ger and Aston, 10 Wallace, SOL tn,
Protector, H. Wallace, 7UO,l Deduc
the time hetween April ~, 1861 Nno
August %, 1866, from The time which
had run Ia this ease prior TO the rAIiIi
cation OF the constitution OF 1869, nnI
even more than five years had clapsc'
aud during which claim the statute
had run.
am not aware that the present su
prome court ofIcXas has made an,
: IluliNg on the question: The late re-
publican supreme court of Texas in tn
case Of Bender Crawford, 33 Texas re
ports, 745, had the question before II
and held that theretrOactlVe suspension
of the statute Of Limitation by the con
stilutlOn of 1869 was eilectlVcand bind
ing. The rule laid down IN that case
when applied to the five years statute
of limitation for the recovery Of land
would be that the constitution can op
crate retroactivey and destroy title
which had already vested, which, ii
my Judgement, Is contrary to sound rea
son and against the whole weight 0
authority. | cannot think it will b,
permitted to stand as law by the pres
emit court, whenever the question il
properly presented The time of sus
pension.of the statutes elimination 10y
the war, as determined by the UniteI
States supreme court, is surely onerou
enough; but to hold that the Limitation
was suspended retroactiycly in times o
peace, and when tie courts were opei
to litigants, would be oppressive, anC
dangerous as II precedent.
CONCLUSION.
therefore conclude that Daniel r.
Grigsby is estopped by the partition
and by his acts of confirmation after be
coming of age. I'd, That the claim
Of Maria Louisa is barred rs to so mucl
of the land as has been in adverse pos
session of defendants OF their vendors
for five years, commencing before
August 24th, 1850, and continuing tt
MArch30th, 1870. If however, the ruling
in ease Of Deudcrv Crawford, 33 Tex.
rs, should be sustained by the presen
Supreme Court, then as the coustitu
ton has extended the time of limlta
ton from five TO sevenye2rs, the claim
of Maria Louisa would not be barred
and she would likely recover of tn,
land-the defendants getting pay TO
their improvements.
j. w. FERRIs, Atty.
Oct. DIST, 1874,