, 1875-02-22
LEGAL Intelligence.
The Supreme Court on Tax-snlcs.
More Efforts Of. tho Assignee Of tho
Atlantic 6 Pacific.
Criticism Of Tho Decision Of the Supreme
Court OH Lncl,cs.

lACHE ES.

LAcHEs.
NOTE TO RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION.
70 The Editor Of The Chtcaao TRIBUNE:
CHICAGO, Fob. 19.-Iho following is noto to
Tho opinion Of Castner VI. Welrod, decided W
lie Supreme Court Of Illinois, and Tho opinion
delivered BY Judgo CRAZY, anu published III tho
Chicago it4e,'- Ocean Of Fob. III.
THE srLLAnrs
II that portion Of tho case commented upon ia
" follows'
rhs conptsinaats, married wonacu.. being the own
IRA Ia fec ot fcal esa!e ~ lS anu .ne.e .aeDsans M H.
tarcGy inate the defendant vent into possession OF
ao under color Of title, snd ia The year lBss OBJ
ss a1ss tho Married wcm.ns &c. q iss tls s.tas
Complainant, who ard stii married., and slat CON.
pjcte bar had since ueen obtained againat ho right OF
fn, Of asISs .so a a st s.nsd G
1851 IL Inconsistent With tho saving clauso Of Tbs
stute q limitation. Mhl: Rsss mafFied ~Sman Sn3an
ou ileia. also, that when tho defendants otainsA
n.tascs Of The iuhbautas gono TINT tho 1fc es
late destroyed: aud that tho rtRLt ot actlnn at
s eaSI sYs III md tha AZ so ~ tic act Of iscl WA
ptsae, tho bsr Of the stasue commenced to accrue
sgainat The wives. .-...
Whio It may not bo grateful task 10 criticfse
our own Supreme Court, got VIC fool that II tue
criticism bo made in Kindness, and simply to
cali tho astcnlion OF tho Court to mistakes
which they wonId DO anxious to correct whcn
pointed out, tlat 10 exception can or wiH DC
taken by any momner ot Tue Con1s "nn 'no
manner Of doing 1t. When rule Of property Ia
oncc established, evcry citizen Ia Interested
..nt m tnrov.,;on ho ,nnf,c cxcant for pood rca-
son. and except upon full consideration OF all she
Il. utu .11t At,r fcutr4
Says tho Court:
Ills urged by The complasnants that at tho time tho
defendant acquired tho title 10 tho lau, three Of tlIo
eepatnants wc1e, and st,l src nndst tie g as,a'sy
ot rovetuFo; nn a. TO the tao a s!sS o. ~ s ,acs,
sr S afs o an De
To overcome tl,ls objection, tho learned Judge
reasons as ioo"a: .'en' cover eosoIt Mno a,.s nas
such ontr7 or institute such action within
- yeurs after her becoming "icmo sole y
~, ,s"1 -,sa..,> -. ~ 4..N,,Is ~
(statnte OF LiluttationB). Hy the Married Wofn-
ans sct OF 1901, 'stho disability Of coycrturb
WAS removed and a married woman is vested
Iii, lin sntiro co,,tro, NJ cr lands md ncrsonal
w. soo e ..s, .,.sss,s.. tasaa" sa,,. ~ an,s
es'"o-ohe nab 'Hesolo'e peeomo iomo so,s. ~.
Ergo, married woman is o fomo SOLE md tho
saving clauua OF tho Btatuto Of Limitations
hsy thetobv become unmcanipg as to hor-tho
1emon thereof las failed.
WE oANHoT AGREE WITH 1nin AnounEnT.
70 perceive tue tolloWing lal'aciea the1otn
Iuo Limitation act uses tho toilns ieme covers
ana fcMo aola ~ contTaalstihct1Gh 70 aeeh
ether and IN their natusal eehse. Ihe Mstfied
WomhnB act usos tae mofas tefne soIe not as
al IN contradistinctton to feme ooyort. ahc re-
Inains feme covert. notwithntand!n8 she OBJ
tafns limited control over certain property,
"as though aho vas aoln E and unmarried:
TO 10 interpreted ainlrltclter. Tie torn "femo
sole " In tho Married Woman's net is used with
qualification. Tho tcrmB are not interchangoa-
blo or conyestiblo. It IL fallacY Of ratociuA-
ton Into which the learned Judge has fallen,
md eAyB Mill (Logic H., Dock 5ch. @, $41: 6oue
Instances OF this fAllacy aro recognized by tho
kchoo!men as the fallaoy dicto secnndM,n Qufd,
n4 dielum stn1rliciter. Ihia ie committed when
In tho premises proposition is nssoFtcti with =
qualification, and the qualification lost sight OF
Ii tho conclus,on. Or oftenes When = limitation
or condition, though not assorted, is necessary
10 tho truth OF tho proposition. but 10 forgotten
Hhen the proposition comes to bo employed ~ a
premise, otc.