The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-09-13

Il, ~ Attendants were, In the absence OF
~ aanrsi d % the contrary the presuf,p-
t,SnSispfha stheir possession was law
S,,is NM enasior, Tho law never presurnes
AZ trcspags! ,the trial court should have
daSiared III effect that the burden was
tipon,tie plaintiffs TO SHOW that the land
sini.,,nA M them WAS a part OF tho ex-
ceptcd lands.
Iri,rt hor IN. the court lays down this
s,...,,., .liat|I,IH may be n very nconvenient
AHA "a plaintiffs In action OF ejectment.
NJ ~ ~ inric Of 1t ls nexorable. They
~ sia,rtiYfa, are the actors, and main-
tan thnt the defendants arc In possess
si I ~ ther land; It Involves no hard
si,ip therefore to require Thorn to mak t'
rood that assertion py proof as con-
ddlt 81 J; president e ne right Of re'ov-
er Sth.r a.s,gnment Of error are sub.
., E.ne. - dapendert upon the deois-
s s..,s =, Ana questions already disposed
IN IN Sa,oiiad discussion OF them Ia not
''. 70 toitowa that the Judgment Of the
rjr,,,it Court Of Wise county must be
r -, e.s and the cause romanded TOR e
now trial. 90, IN
Kestersor, vs.. Hill. $5
~. .susa OF Kesterson's adminis--.
!, ~ n w -. IIill5tf,e opinion OF the court
,rr r, hv Judge Harrison, reveraes the
1,dunent az the Circuit Court OF Lee
county. from, which the appeal comes; !.
The xontrolling Question 'nvoiveo " !.
the case Ii that raised pS ING aSs.s n.io ~
49, s,,sto,ninr the defence Of the statute
- !, 81, tinnaas 20 the claim asserted By
y r. npt IIIil .the appellee brought this suit
/, ~ nat,,ra 81 q creditors bill, again Vt
q n a Kestarsor,. administrator of ]. M.
Uthce,er AZ. TO enforce payment Of q
bond dated May list, 1888. and payable
Ono day after date for the sum OF *ssi.
THE Appellate Court holds that BOND was
payable one day after date and was s
alma NJ the obliger's death; but no steps
havinr been taken for Its collection until
March. 1893. nearly seven years. 1t was
CLEARLY barred by the exprets terms OF
section 900 OF the code The appellee.
however, contends that his right OF action
Is saved BY section 1888 OF the code. which
Is quoted. 2
The Appellate Court holds that the stat
ute OF limitations applies In the case
and that the debt Is, therefore. not col
lectible. In this the contention Of the
nnnellate that section 1888 Is applicable
| ir the case does not apply. The right
to set Up bar Of a statute OF limitar
tons as defence to a cause OF action
after the statute has run, Is held to be
vested right, and cannot be taken away
BY legislation, either by repeal OF the
statute, without saving clause. or by ar
affirmative act. Numerous text writer,
are quoted to sustain this position.
The further con tention Of the appellate
| that the bar OF the statute is repealed By
subsequent acknowledgment and prom
isc to pay the debt, made by the ad
| ministrator within the statutory perior. !!
held by the court to be untenable.
Finally the court holds and declare!
that the debt asserted BY the appellate
~. b. Hill. against the estate OF J.. NJ
Wheeler, sr.,a deceased, Is barred by tn
statute OF Limitations and that the de
crees In this cause 80 far as they under
take to establish such claims as valie
and subsisting debt, must be reversed ant
set aside and the cause remanded.