, 1877-02-09

tie risk.
After the objection that tho pronfs NJ loss
furnished wc.n Insufficient Under tltc tthtfons
q tie poli'y The nasnrcd was relieved from, any
obligation TO make further prnuf In consequence
ol tn" Company placing III rcturtl tn nav tho
inss On tho grornl ri iion-aEllity In my event.
I!lc aet!nn was mt preli,atnrcly brought illo
G,o,nrany having PLACED Is refusal t"Ea tho
utHm tho Company. In my cTent, u tannOt
avail Itself nj iIlc limitation rlauso uf tlc policy
as defense. There IL hD tcasOi, fyr exIcmllng
70 Tho Company the benefit Of The limitation
clnllso a. to the bringing OF ali action for lu4s
wltrli utIiccra iiavu decided not to pay al aMy
tl,nc, Or under any circumstances. Tic time
given In Which tO nnkc tho Payment ri tho Oss
mas oi no va'na to tie Company, for IL did tnt
crty to bring hcr nctton nj once.
Rogers " Appleton, attorneys for defendants
IL crror, and ca'licld. Hardin Il Patton Tor tho
11a the Ease hf Caetncr rs. Walr,H1, recently
decided ulon ,rchcaring, the Supreme t,,t,rt nf-
ff1nctl their iDrnicr opinion, holding that The
statute OF limitations Will rim ngalnst married
md that the saving cla,ttc Of Tho limitation gel
III iafor OK lriMfncs covert llda been implicitly
repealed BY the said net Of tHd1. They express.
y nimlffy t'!e opinions expressed u, llc sntrto
W. and SoUs y. ii Mclssan s IT,, s s. ''T1,; T&s
e, e the tlssi.ion my not hs embarrassing.
G4 Garer arss. aS fs ", n a' G Ks1s G%ny 's"t s
yeyallcc Of lraet nf land c!atn,cd by the eon,-
plainantF It anrrars that in 1910 Anos
llaski'ts, fatirr Of The comninnanss, ln,ueht nf
one Uwcn lta! tllc land IN eontrnrrrsy fnr s14,
ykl!ng for tho conveyance 0f tho property fru,n
Hall. When the srroul payment was due, Ia
October, 1850, this totnl wis assigned "
,a1 %i.ls' to psy l!SlI r. November iSs l,.tia.
loan, ,ook the bond wi,iSh appcnred to be trans.
fcrrcd tp hin to 11atl, and rrtGrc,l dcr Of to
lIc took poesc:e!on, sllcccctlctl in getting re-
lcatc Of }|lu cntils of Mrs. Naskils nNti Asa
llaskins. md occup1ctl the lard without contest
until the present eult IN 1860. Twu principal,
Complainant ad been gully of lael.es, tic otIt-
cr ns. ia whether three IL tho comnlaiDantH who
were fnnrrfcl women were not pIDtcrled by the
snving clause OK the statute Of limitations pro-
yitllnE tlsut tloJ should hnvo three years inter
thc termination Of their coycrtNru within Which
tn bring suit.
The Supreme Court said that the delay Of
nineteen years in commencing suit ,xas falnl
q so,irt in opt sime tic facts as dIaciosc,l on on
the trial showed IL transaction 90 unfair anti In
equitable III Its nalro, II not fraudulent i1l Its
character, as would fully Justify court Of
~ seps e rus SeS
yrars. and riot even tho charge of fraud WIS
then sufficient TO compel court to step orcF
tho welt-cstabllslc1 rules and encourage staio
giAin.
The force and effect Of tho saving clause Of
tic Statute OF Limitations was entirely changed
asNl ne,ltrallzel by tile act Of 1851 known ~
"ThO Married WOlncn's act" Before TINT
time married woman t could not own
thereto. Il her lands after marriages be-
cano occupied adversely slio had no
power TO prevent the running Of the Statute OF
Limitation BY tic payment Of taxes herself MS
slo had clI!ld her husband acquired 4 life cs-
tate n her land US tenant BY Tic courtesy. Tho
act Of 1eCl. however, made y radical change Of
q married woman over iler property. She cou1l
then sue and be sued. mako contracts With rel.
ercnce t1 her ptopcrty, aud pay taxcs tho same
as though sllo wcrc unmarried: Tho reason for
fs as m 5Se9 9 ss saynT san,o IN the s
II " Inconsistent with tl,as .'S hofors Of 81 i
the former must be held to 10 repealed by I'M
nllcation. Tic conclusion was Irresistible that
the eaytnr clansc was ahrogatch, and TINT n
married woman vas to be considered NJ d fcnlInu
sole with reference to her own property. There
was no reason why she shoul bc entitled 10 the
tAFH'H cl4ubc Dl tH9 EIntHt9 OF Lin1lfali1hs.
y slla had property sse should bear the respot-
slblity. The life cstnto of tho compiainnnta
was barred In 1858. tic defendant having held
thc lana "a against them seven ycars By a tltlo
dclucibfe Of record. Tho stntutu began to run
murrlcd women in 1851. and 1913 their rights
were, gono for tho same reason,
and the suIt which was begun In ls!lv was tI!erc-
f9rc too late, The onln!ons iu Morrison ".
u H., ~, were therefore to 10 modified 80 far
a. they contlicted with the present opinion.
,il'o decree u the Circuit Court Of kunc County
\! dle1nasslng tho bill was affirmed. Justices
Sheldon n'ld Dlckey dtsscntel.
G., D, V. It. II. VS.. THE HAHK or NORTH
AMERICA.
- This WINS OH pcution for rchcaring. Tho
Court having previously rcycrscd tho Judgment
asiocruton xo vo e come tot to t].o sa eonsl.isl"1 1
that our former judgment s}lnul1 bo cl,angci,
and THO Judgment OF tho Court below confirm.
ed"s1 was nu acton Of ns,usnpsit, thu tlcclara-
oi, ' esssatea g. 'pssnI pta aa e 51fs9y rs
f. Young, 0encral Manager, to 4. ]. Walker,
and l,y him tndorsea to thu plaintiff, and utso
tfa containing tl!e common count. Annexed to
tas, tg declaration was an affidavit Of tho ,atnre
ia,,tlant isa.i h'ea plea denying the exccr-
ysriile.! by tho aayt ot i IT, Pls.Jaas. st Ths s
nlea way on motion os plaintiffs attorney
want q Oh affidavit of merit uudcr the statute,
and 1.tuKmcnt was rendered to thu full amount
of the note and interest. Tho points in Tic caso
a5Gea ~ ti,s defendant WERE, Frst, that tho
Itsatlo by m agent ind not With tho plaintiff
itself; second, that no a0Idayt OF merits wis
required M IN behalf OF tho defendant, Us Il was a-
,,sssa 70 oe , aeofporatIon chartered BY The Lcgs
ness under sui by virtue of that charter, md
tlerctoru was NONRESIDENT corporation: anu,