|
AND PROPER TO BE INCORPORATED.
237
of their office, made in the seventh
year of his majesty's most happy reign.
(Part.)
See the note on 7 James 1, Ch. 5; but the part respecting
the county in which the suits are to be
brought, and respecting the double costs are thought not to have extended
to the province.
CHAP. 13. An act for the further reformation of
jeofails.
See the notes on 32 Hen. 8, Ch. 30; and 18 Eliz.
Ch. 14; and see 1 Bac. Abt. title Amendment
and Jeofail, B.
CHAP. 15. An act to enable judges and justices of
the peace to give restitution of
possession in certain cases. (Part.)
See the note on 5 Rich. 2, St. 1, Ch. 8. This
statute is proper to be incorporated, &c. as to tenants
for term of years.
CHAP. 16. An act for limitation of actions, and
for avoiding suits in law. (Part.)
As to the first section of this statute, or that
part of it which declares, that no person shall make an
entry into lands, &c. but within twenty years after his right and title
shall first accrue, there can be no
doubt of its having been practised under in the province, and of its remaining
in force in the state.
See the note on 5 Rich. 2, St. 1, Ch. 8; and 3 Bl. Com. 175 and 179.
The time at which it was
adopted by the courts, appears to be uncertain. In the case of Drane
and Hodges, (Harris and
McHenry's Reports 518,) it was argued by one of the counsel, (T. Johnson,)
that this statute was
enacted before the charter of Maryland was granted, and therefore was a
part of the law of this
country; which, however, must be understood with a reservation of the power
of the courts, to judge
of its consistency with the good of the province, as is expressed in some
of the early acts, and of its
applicability and extention. In the case of P. Lloyd's lessee
against Hemsley, reported in the same
book, (p. 28,) there is some ambiguity in the special verdict, and
it does not clearly establish that
the statute had not before extended. In the case of Lee's lessee
against Bladen, (p. 30,) this part of
the statute was pleaded, and on a general demurrer thereto, judgment was
given for the plaintiff.
But the case of Miller's lessee against Hynson, (p. 84,) which was in the
year 1730, shews that the
statute was then considered in force. See also the case of Brent
and Tucker, which was in 1737,
(p. 89,) and Tucker's lessee against Whittington, (p. 150.) The
opinion of the proprietor was against
the adoption of this statute, as had been that of his ancestor against
any of the English statutes.
In 1723, the following instructions were sent to the
governor: " You will herewith receive my
dissent to an act of limitation of actions of trespass and ejectment, to
be published and entered on
record according to your forms, which act is not only explanatory of an
English statute not in force
in our province, but seems, by implication, to introduce English statutes
to operate there, which
statutes have been always held not to extend to the plantations unless
by express words, &c."
The acts of assembly respecting limitations, commenced
in 1663-4, the 25th chapter of which was
entitled, " An act for land five years in possession." The acts
of 1669, Ch. 2, and 1692, Ch, 35, contained
provisions as to actions of trespass, debt, &c. similar to these
of 1715, Ch. 23, and were silent
as to the time limited in this statute respecting the right of entry.
The act of 1695, Ch. 3, related to
bonds. It will be observed, that the 2d section of the act of 1715,
has nearly the same expressions as
the 3d section of this statute, only altering the times of limitation in
some cases from 6 years to 3, and
in others from 4 years to 1, which was considered by the counsel in the
case of Drane and Hodges,
before mentioned, as an abridgement of the time limited by this statute.
|
 |
