, 1875-02-22

Judicial legislation: Wc ia1la! ln ho eas'ng e'ahfe
iaos, lis Court aeon. IT ni'eer''ary Ia discuss .I.e
what would bo Tho reaul:,.
WoBce from ll,is Il, II tho reason OF o,tr Hr1.
1,1emc Court In 1868 IN regard to tho statutes II,
question Wan entirely dttietent from shose OF
dfGs.cnt reason for tho etatutos Under coneid-
GRAFTON from Judge Craft, and, ~ ho fntiaatou.
tho LoRlAlatuEo probably never bestowed
thoughtful reasoning ,l'oa my OF thoso atas'ltas
that tho decision Of lf,,rrieon w. Norman on
this point. while it 70 th oro.tahly Incompatible
with tle decision undcr c4'nsfle1atioht Ia entire.
caae Of lIosel Of al. Va snn do1aon, 3a Ill., p 2bt
April Term, 1865, where ttss Court taya shat II Is
not for them 10 Indulge in hypotloses - to what
caans the statuto will be found 10 apply.
Moreover tue tnnx!m Ia u:ssantt ruffohe tegss,
and not ecssaate rnionc jic'ici,, etc. Io UNDER
stnnl tho roason of starisc ia very tlosirAule
for mnly p,lrpoHos Of It's application. hut " csn
not 10 employed for tho purpose OF Its own do
structlOn.
DcHldos, when tho aavlug clause Of tho statute
Of li,nt;atioua waB At first asioatcd by Our LcsiH-
lattlre, could not at that tim, aIToady tonln
covert own Hoo a,,d separate o'tato? And, II ~
cstnte2 II Tho statutory separate estate to bo
loss protected?
THE MOTT AMAZING, -
mud, ut tho saao time, il It's rctlflltB, unst eer-
OILS NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. klit A'bA VI buo
port OF our docisioua. occnra in regard to tho
inns when roversloncr's right al entry or right
TO sue accrues. Washburti TN nca1 Property.
Ill, p. 1872. states tho law TO 10 that no dssotslti
Of a tenant of particular aRtats nild occupation
,,ndcr IT, howevor tong continued, will afcet the
right OF tho rovessonor. Tie hHtcr may enter
whenever tic particular cstato s'Iall determine
by its limitation. Tho statute does not run
agallst rovorsioner I'LL tho dea sh OF tho tonant
for llfe wherb tho hitter has voyod tho catato
in foo. Aud where . husband tlnd wife wore
dlssoieed. and tito dissaisor 1ie!d adycrso
possession for tho period at Limitation,
Wti!c, poBscealon would bar tho right Of the
husband II living, 1t his death slao or hor rspro-
scntatlyea might clain, the land Il nd ZOO caBes
there cltad). Soc also 1Viliasna oi, lEenl Prop
osty. y. 233 e. very lncid statement ,'f tue sailo
loctruo) and tho comprehensive aticlo on ti1ili-
tation contributed by j. Wilder May, Esq. (editor
of Angel on LimitatiouB}, to fourteenth edition
Of Uouvior's Law Dictionary (secs. I'll aud G2).
auCI IS THE ESiI.lsn ASp AMERICAN uoc cEn1SE.
We have ITO statute OH tlo subject ohnp ging that
common Law 1ulo Of roaI property. Tho ruio al'-
plies to n1asriol or unmarried, malo ar female.
rorcsBioucts alike. Tho deeislons OF our
Supreme Court arc tn full accord WIZ, tho COM
,non law. In Tacttt ". Draper, G1 ILL.,, Soptenl-
bcr Term, 1871, 1t IL said by Justice Sheldon:
uy operation Of tbs statute Of Inltauons, tho life
estate of the husband hecalne barred and VA rested
anne manner and With tho sa,no rights tla u. wou!d
havo bad II tue husband had conveyed the saas to
him. Che doctrine announced In shostali VA. unck-
Ii Kiblo ". Williams, 50 Ill., january Term, 1871,
tas aeHrt 1rSXs tho s' a a'"n III h' at'
In Steele vs.. GollatIy, 4lss Illinois, ptgo 90,
April Term, 1865, Judge Lawrence illustrator tho
rulo as follova:
For example, suppose 4 Is tenant for lite with re
maInder III fco to y, and tntera adversely un der
tenant for lie would 10 Garrel but can thero h, lny
doubt hut that. ntcf lila death, tho re.nainder an
roa T. st d. On
hts part. a. ho could not bring such suit durinE ths
e1iatenco Of Tue cnant for ltc Thls principle Ii d..
iii, 3so. dcc.o At tic proscnt term Of ibis Oon,
A against tho cssso in remutndcr, the statute dnas
fc. aid It mult run ita full period tasoFe at eststs
Ia barred.
In the caso ot Jacobs We. Rico, % ILL.,, 971,
January Term, Judge Bockwith sass,
color Of dtio acquired IN good fatth; aud from tint
tnc until tho commencement Of thiS suit IN 1868, has
on pns M IL
right Of pusaassion during LIS fo and hs might lavo
Of thor estases Tho estato OF Dustin wan one sia:
ncr tist ohes liz estatea arc, TGe status II mila
tous Las Tin aaso application to 1t that h to oIher
! 4 T. !: 4. ss = 5s s::k . II s;,ss
Il III Dustin i,aa conveyed tic sausa 10 him.
The scnirdy for Its recovery, by Dustin and his
fcrcl where tic remedy ccated. lhe appellant IL tho
owner Ut tie remainder, sal Wien tho lfo cstato
cover cover il fro1n thurs who wrong,nliy wlthoi il.
citcd.}
and smother, Ji ILL.,, al0.-Aprll Torn, 1866
Mr. Justice Walter Hays:
tate, dependent upon tho death OF tho husband. It s
ntv.$A
may have io.t hs osato In tho lanla but It does
therefore follow that the we haa Dccuma ycatcl with
present esta.e in tho Wife, After the death of tho
huhband tho pnEehaaer may no dout s,so foi and r.
'e osss 1ss r.on 49, 0a' the '
Ths dssga ot the aeaeiM Assembly, no doubt, w.a
IT, S M sss
'lon would virtually ropesl tha limitation laws IN rst.
Assembly. Ths pisniH lad ouly acquitted Tho rishs
lis deei and tho statutory period u limiiaton ay.ns
rscoyar.
In Higgins W. Crosby, 40 Iii, 2oG--Ap.il Term,
1sC8.-it was said by Judge Walker.
1t il certainly true that tho statute may rim, and Tho
bas BECOME eomrsste *gainst an estate for e for
present sssns rshs pus. % IL s aueh a.: ea:as .Ss tas
Particular estate ia spent thn bar falls with That estate,
md The right oi sn. thsn accrue. to tho 5e!aadss
/ btatuts bcEtna 10 run against Him.
We would ask. How can tic doctrine Ia OK
pressed clearer al,d more prac,hely tilan In The
words, "tshen tho particular estate IL spent tho
lar falls with that eatate"? When IL that par
! ticnlar estate spent, however, II tho particular
estate H. for instance. I Ito estate OF A, It IL
spout with the dropping Of A's life. II A has
conveyed + IN foe to u, b holds It for Al life.
II As lito estate has loou barr0d under tho
statute ~ against D. u holds 1t ~ against
A during IA lifo. Ia all those cascs
tho only ground upon which G, tho rercrnnner,
could claim that right Of action for tho rccoy-
CRY OF tho cs.ate hns accrued to him. would bo
tho allegation, not that A han aod It, nor that
las acquoscod In somebody oiEe's enjoying 1t
adyeraoly, nor that haa allowed it to he ba,rad
under tho statute, anu in consequence thercot
ngeinst O wo say tue revosaouera allegation
would havo to bo that has ded, aud AZ
tleash was tho only limitation whereby lis Ito
estate could 10 spont according to all tho rulos