Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1888-04-16

andria Canal Company, by which the claim
of the city against said company 1850, 900
with interest) is allowed:
u. 8. CIRCUIT COURT,
ALEXANDRIA, April, 1888.
United States
VS..
The Alexandria Canal Company.
On the petition of the city of Alexandria snd
demurrer to the same
Hughes J.
On the Attn OF May, 1887, the United
States filed a bill in Ibis Court to procure a
dissolution of the Alexandria Canal Com
pany, praying, among other things, that its
debts be ascertained and its property and
effects sold.
A reference has been made to commits
siouer, who has been required to report what
debts are due from the company and who
are is creditors.
Ia aid of the Commissioners charged with
this Inquiry, the city of Alexandria,
on the 9th of January, 1888, came
into Court, by petition, avering that it
is creditor of the canal company {;
fling certain bonds the canal company to
the amount of about $4,000, as evidences of
the alleged Indebtedness and praying viz
tually that the bonds may be declared to be
a valid debt of the canal company to the
city.
The receiver of the canal company comes
and demurrs to the petition, alleging as
grounds of demurrer. that large number
of the bonds filed by Alexandria are barred
by statutes of Limitation of the State of Vir-
cinia and that such of the bonds as are not
so barred, are stale and ought not ca equo ct
bono to be held to constitute valid claim
against the company.
A memorandum of the bonds IN question
has been made for me by Inc clerk, and is
filed-t e1raa-W which it appears that bonds un.
der seal to the amount OF 500 400 (which I
shall designate az class | were Issued IN
1850 and fell due on the lst day of January,
1865;
That others to the amount of So,500,
which I designate as class 2, were issued
in 1854. and fell due on the lst day OF Janua
ry, 1860; 1900 nm 49,.
That Others 10 the amount of 1923 600 (say
class 3 were issued in 1850 and fell due on
the 1st duy of January, 1860;
That one bond for 5000 (say class 4, was
issued in 1917 and fell due on the 14th Au
gust. 1867; 40
That other bonds to the amount Of 81, 400
saw class 81 were issued in 1858, ard tell
due on 1st January, 1859;
That other bonds TO the amount OF $50
sos 70 (say class g. were issued in 1916, AZ
and 80, and fell due on the 1st January,
1856;
That one bond for 1000 Gay class ~ was
April, 1858
And that one bond for 81 400 SAY class S.
was issued and fell due on the 18th March,
1849.
think it was competent for the receiver
to have answered the petition of the city Of
Alexandria, by demurrer. This is method
of insisting upon the statute of limitations
and stalensss of demand, in courts OF equl-
ty, which ia abundantly sanctioned and sup
ported by the authorities.
come, therefore, to consider the question
of statutory law The city Of Alexandria
could have brought suit upon these bonds
during the lie of the company in court OF
law and it is we'll settled that where a
court of equity has concurrent jurisdiction
of a debt with court of law, it is bound to
apply the statute of limitations, in the same
manner In which it would be applied by the
lower court: We must, therefore, ascertain
which, if any. of the bonds now under con
sideraton are bound by the Virginia statute
of limitation In order for the statute to be
effectual, the period during which tho stat
ute ran against them must have been TWEEN
ty years. The bill in this case was flied OH
the 4.h Of May, 1887. The period during
which the running of the statute was sus
pended, in consequence of thesectional war,
began on the 18th Of April, 1861, and ter
minated on the lat of January. 1869, lasting
seven years, eight months, and fourteen
DAYS. The time between the lst Of January,
1869, and the filing OF the bill in this
cause, on the fourth of May, 1887,
was less than twenty years: and II follows
that the period during which the statute
must have run against the bonds under con
sderation must reach back twenty years,
plus seven years, eight months and fourteen
days that is to say, must reach back twen-
ty-seveD years, eight months and fourteen
days from May 4tb, 1887. The statute did
not begin 10 run against these bonds, there
fore, before the 2lst of August 1859; all
bonds which fell due anterior to that date
being barred and all falling due after that
date being free from the statutory bar.
1t follows that the bonds Of classes l, 2, 3,
and 4, heretofore named, amounting to
sec, 600 are not affected by the statutes OF
Limitation and that those CT classes D. g.
Z, and named above, amounting to Si9,-
355 70, are beyond the limit of the statute,
and are barred.
We come therefore to enquire whether
this court, sitting in equity, will apply
rule of it's own to the bonds of classes j, 2, 3.
and not barred by statute, and reject them
on the ground of mere staeness, as insisted
upon by the receiver.
There is no doubt that, in proper cases, a
court of equity NAV, exercising preroga
tive peculiar to the equity Jurisdiction, re-
ject claims that have not yet come to be
barred by statute law; but this extraordi
nary power is never broughtinto requisition,
except upon urgent necessity. 1t is only
in cases where some gross ipius
tce would result generally to persons other
than the debtor and the creditor holding the
claim. A court of equity will apply short
or limitation than the statute prescribes for
the purpose, in the language Of Judge Story,
of "discouraging for the peace of society, anti
quated demands, and will refuse to interfere where
there has been gross aches in prosecuting rights,