The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-05-14

SAVES LAND.
Wins Victory in Higher
Courts.
WILL STOP LITIGATION
Trustees Have Right to Eject
Persons from Land.
The Decision Of the Lower Court Of
jefferson County Is Amrmed, There
Being Twenty-Yesr statute
OF Limitation.


A signal victory was gained by the
University Of Alabama yesterday, when
the Supreme Court decided that the
Board of Trustees Of that institution
has the right to eject any perso1 or
corporation who claims title to Uni
versity land. held in adverse posses
sion for less than twenty years. The
decision OF the court affirms the judg-
ment Of the Jefferson Circuit Court.
which had. pronounced In favor of the
Trustees. In an action of etsc.rlenr
against John H. Cox.
There were two leading questions
which presented then, elves 30 the SUI
preme Court fo- decision and In their
discussion Justice }. ]. Mayfield. VIC
wrote The opinion. used MOTE than
twelve type-written pages. The ground
on which the defendant had hoped TO
retain possession of forty acres of land
lying in Jefferson County, was the stat
ute of Limitations. 1t was alleged that
the title Of the property did not vest
in the State. but In the Board of Trus-
tees. and that therefore the statute of
Limitation of ten years. instead OF
twenty. applied.
Then this question resolved itself,
according to Justice Mayheld. into the
second inquiry. as to when the statute
began to run in the particular case.
In answering the points, the opinion
swept back to the old Mississippi Ter
ritory government, brought the history
of the University up, thence to the sew
eral Alabama Constitutions. which fol-
lowed the admission of the State into
the Union; thence to the grant by Con-
gress of 46.os0 acres OF land to the
State, to hold in trust for the Univer.
sity. the acts of the Legislature fixing
the trust and granting the land to the
Board of Trustees. ALI of this was fol-
lowed in close. consecutive review In
relation to the beginning of the time.
when the statute of limitations was In
force with the defendant.
After retracing 1t all. the Supreme
Court announced its conclusion that
the statute Of twenty years Limitation
applied, dating from May, 1885, when
the actual title vested in the State.
1t was at that time that the big land
grant passed from the possession of the
United States into the State. 1t was
then that the land from ths original
grant OF 1874 was selected and approx
ed by representatives of the Depart
ment OF Interior. and that act. rather
than the date Of the patent OF, 1892,
should determine the beginning OF the
statute of limitation.
lacked One Year.
This being the case. John Cox.
though he held his forty acres from the
year 1888, he lacked by about one year
to run out the full twenty. since the
action of ejectment was brought March
Is. 1904. 1t was held, too. that the in
terest of the Trustees of the University
was equivalent to the interest OF the
State, as the Board should be looked
upon as a part of the State, the States
machinery for giving education TO the
entire people of the State. There
could be no individual interest attached
to that of the Trustees and therefore
an action brought by them was enti-
tied to the same construction of the
statutes of limitation as IL the suit
were brought in the name of the State.
Justice sMavfield> added that 1t was
proper to distinguish between the
Trustee case under consideration and
that of the STANDARDIZATION land. The
Supreme Court had previously held
that the statute of ten years applied
in the latter case, because in the grant
of that land to the State for educa-
tonal purposes, the title vested in the
people of the township respectively OF
each county, Should the States name
be used by the township in an action
OF etectment 1t would bar the recovery
unless brought within ten years from
the entry.
1t was repeated that no statute of
Limitation can operate against the
United States Government
It Is said that there were several de-
PENDANTS in suits brought at the same
time that action was fled against John
H. Cox. but that no answer was made
and he was the only one to fight 1t out
through the Supreme Court. The de-
cision will save much Of the Untver-
sity's land that has been In litigation.