Court Opinion

ID: 6607351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-20 20:14:55.285315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:58:13.918581
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice MILLER.
I concur in the judgment of the court, and in its opinion as to the-first ground on which the judgment is based.
In that part of the opinion which declares the statute of limitation to be a good defence, I cannot concur. The facts conceded by both parties show, that until the death of Thomas Croxall, in 1861, the defendants and those under whom they claimed, had a lawful possession ; and were at no time liable to an action to disturb that possession until that event; and I do not believe that the statute of limitations of New Jersey, or of any other country, or any rule of prescription, was ever intended to create a bar in favor of parties in possession, who were not liable to be sued in regard to that possession.
■ It was unnecessary to decide this proposition, as the court were unanimous in the opinion that defendants had a good title, in fee simple, which needed no statute of limitation to protect it.
Judgment aeeirmed.