, 1877-02-07

EIIuFe HNI, nlsO, tllnl7 II there TaA CONTRACT
pt,nt Ut tlee'lnatlon, then The r!antif1, Wilcox,
waA prevented from recovering by rca.urr of the
reiaasc wl'icf, he l.asl txue,t md delivered IN
t!,s Company. On tl.e trial ,,' before Ju.lEc
ils Court held against tho dcfenda,lt, tho
Company. on all the. points n.fscd, and
IN an appeal to tho Supreme Court
the Judgment was sustaincd. Thc Eric
ssas md is'ss ss Sas1 cau9s now eede
Ms flcrcaofurc, tllat The Company is not bound
10 undertake 10 trantinrt, go<aia beyond the
TERMINUS uf lts line, hut TINT to limit its lIabt
nssent uf The shipper. Tho Supreme Court re-
verses the judgment Of tic Court below, ho'tl-
Ing That s1crc was l,' negligence on the pnrt OF
tho Company, or the otl,et intermediate roads,
rCspet ting tftccarr OF tltu goods and tue effort
to correct Ilc otldfess, and that the rc1euAe exc
cutrd by Wilcox operated TO relieve the Com
pnny froin tile extreme common Inv liability re-
fpcctLng tho goo.ls, which liability the receipt
taken. Winston n Willard fnr tho Erin Rail-
way Company, anu Ado1pl Moses for the ap-
HOLDEN ". sHERwoop. =,
This wAs an action commenced originally bc.
fore Justice Of the Peace, and waa appealed to
the Circuit Court, and on trial resulted In vcr
dict for tlo plaintiff. After. rendition Of the
/ gcsted biz bankruptcy, and Tic Court, notwiti..
stlnltng tint, entered Judgment on tho verdict.
Is urged TINT the grncral Bankruptcy law
| prrhtblta all crcdtors from prosecuting their
thc question 1T discharge vf such debtor al,al!
hare been tcterfninGd mil tllat such suit a]la!l
br .ta!l to nwntt ttls determination.
:. Thc rceorl contains ~ blu Ut cxscbtion:, and
rupscy. It nowhere appears ttlat, any motion
was entered for tlc sthy VI procccdingt.. 4 mo.
tian accompanied with tlie adjudication and
b., 9ase'l thereon wonl be tho proper pFastise.
Court can Iayn anything upon whici, to net 4
Court would not be authorized to cntcr stay
On It's own motion, NOR Is It tic duty Of tho
Judge to MAKE inquiry to learn nv whsthcr u thc
rupt, nor rau lie act on nny knoslcslu which no
mny acquire until uskcl In proper nlanncr. It
is true thc statute prohibits the Court from pro.
see!ng to anal Judgment, gi but i. The h!, fat of
tic knowledge Ut tho Court III q proper
,lanncr. AS well say that II a defendant were
to say 14e 1ad palu tic debt for wllicl! hc was
sued md ask leave to lilo tho receipt II should
defeat Tho action, tho h.nkraptcy muEt be
pleaded i. t1c same manner - any ctllcr de-
fersc. Tho suggestion TINT tho defendant was
4 bankrupt was wholly unlikc tho suggest1on Ut
thu death of one nf tho parties, as In That ease
tic Court thereby loses Jurisdiction Of the de-
fcntlant nnd cah proceed no further until
sotnc Eersun Is substituted to rcDrcscnt
Court still continues to ha.e 1urisliction
If lits person. aud may proceed to trial and
Judgment Unless lie In proper manner inter.
lmses Ibis bankruptcy, But crcn II there ha'a
bcrn ntnpcr motion, Il came too late, as tho
bankruptcy had occurred some five mouths besoru
The irlAi. Appellant should l.ayc made his mo-
tton for stay nf pn'ccedlags, based on tho
lrial. III could not be permitted to Tie by aud
nlow the pntnttH to incur the expense OF the
trial, anl, Wien 1t terminated 1n u verdict
against lin, then, for the lrst tfmc, ask for u
stgy 1f pro;ee.!IGga.,
THE BrArCrE OF LIMITATIONS.
In the raee Of Robert ". Ifyt.nn, appellant,
Is. William Baync,, appellee, recently decIded
by tlc sasprcIne Court. the question ns to
md ,arret! there By tic Btatute of limitations,
slDuld le considered ~ barred In this Etnte, Is
discussed at great lcngth. It appears that Isaync
slltsl LYMAN IN thu Superior Court for money
une pf which set W. that more than sixteci,
years had elapsed Tir fact was that the action
ucet.lct in Maryland in January, 1854, asn That
lY The laws of that State suit was buried at tile
ttUs, therefore, was whether, under thu l1nEtu-
tion laws Of this State prior to the act Of
la's, when both parties llad at all tl1ncs resided
continuously bcyon tl,c limits Of this ssatc for
the statutory pcriod, It WASH bar to recovery.
The net Of l3io provided anony other th!rga
that all notions Dn slInp1o coltracts, etr,, en-
tered into after that ttnsc sfould 10 barred IN
h&AEGH jEAHf kuRt HELlUIj8 Qu UTOlIllRGS III
writing, ,atc.. should 10 barred y tlvo years.
The twelfth ecction OF tho oct Of 1916 provided
that thu tt'no a person might bc ont OF tho
State when nnothcr was entitled to bring suit
sixteen years lunltat!on. acc. 20 u tic act Of
april /, 117a, provided that Wien causc Of
actlon 'ad ari5en I'll State or Territory out u
tills State or III foreign country, and by tho
iAlnt1sslrd ly reason 1T lapso nj time, nn action
SHOULD not bo maintained liz tltls State.
Under these proytafota the Supreme Court
he'd It WA very plain tue appclice was cGcetu-
person could not return to tl!ls Staae il lIu i,a4l
not previously been In 1t, aid tho saylur clause
of Lie net Of 1915 had therctora no application
l,,s %!sn ts statutory period la4 explre aid tle
Ut The !aly was to gfye rcposo to society nnl to
prevent litigation ot etntc cIain,u, aid il tllu
l.cRtslature had intended to exempt such claims
as hs fs prssst tney Toala ', ave ~ :ai9 so
t1rtlIt stated, have needed my dfscusstou had
t4ctc not becn q discrepancy between the dccls-
i,''s ot tho ynstous States gu the subject. When
}raae }fs s,a anu ~ credit were not SO wi!lcsprca tho
tim wore loukctl On With tlisfavor. There was
also another question as To whether tic urt OF
lois wus Retrospective In tts operation. That
t!nn on Which srlt could not be n,nlntaIuytl ut
tfe itil!o the law was passed.. Thu naturll unll
grammatical Import Of the Language was that 1t
should bo barred t the cuurts u this SUITS il it
Was buried by tie lawa Of another State when
tlH' artIo1' was brought In this State witi,out
reference to When Tho slllt should bu brought.
% thnt IT was after the adoption of tlle law,
sit tt!at art W. not retrospectise, 30 - to ru-
t'on. 1t took from thy creditor 10 fixed or
vested right. All the right he previously ind
was tho hure contingency that hts debtor might,
.kat hc nligrt learn II tho fart in tlmo to sue
llfln hero. BAyne could not have snaintainefi y