| Volume 194, Page 602 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
602 21 JAC. I, CAP. 16, LIMITATIONS. Assault, Menace, Battery, Wounding or Imprisonment, Actions upon the Case for Words, be or shall be at the Time of any such Cause of Action given or accrued, fallen, or come within the Age of twenty-one Years, Feme Covert, Non compos mentis, imprisoned, or beyond the Seas, that then such Person or Per- sons shall be at Liberty to bring the same Actions, so as they take the same within such Times as are before limited, after their coming to, or being of full Age, Discovert, of sane Mem- ory, at Large, and returned from beyond the Seas, as other Persons having no Impediment, should be done. 20 II. 3, c. S. 3 Ed. 1, c. 39. 32 H. 8, c. 2. 1 Ma. 1, Sess. 2, c. 5. I. Writs of Formedon shall be sued within twenty Years. March, 129. Hetley, 87, 141. 2 Salk. 421, 422, 423. Entry into Land, &c. shall be made within twenty Years. For Entries to avoid a Fine, see 4 Ann®, c. 16, sect. 16. II. Infants, Femes covert, &c., excepted. III. The Limitation of certain Personal Actions. March, 155. Stiles, 109, 214, 281. Hutt. 100. Hetley, 140. March, 151. 1 Mod. 269. 4 Mod. 105. Carthew, 136. 1 Lutw. 260. 1 Sand. 37, 38. 1 Mod. 89, 245. 2 Mod. 212. 3 Mod. 311. 1 Shower, 341. 2 Shower, 126. 2 Salk. 421, 424. Cro. Car. 115, 141, 160, 245, 295, 381, 405, 513, 333. 1 Vern. 456. 2 Vern. 694, 695. 2 Vern. 185. 3 Lev. 245, 283. 1 Salk. 28. IV. Their Limitation after Judgment or Outlawry reversed. V. After Judgment or Nonsuit in a Quare clausum fregit, the Plaintiff is barred to renew the Suit. Hetley, 165. 450* VI. In Action of Slander the Plaintiff shall recover no greater Costs than Damages. Palmer, 529. 1 Salk. 206. Cro. Car. 307. Lee, 82. Latch. 2, 58. VII. Infants, Femes Covert, &c., excepted. 1 Sid 453. 2 Mod. 71. Only the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 7th sections are considered proper to be included in our laws. But I have printed the whole Statute, for purposes of comparison with our own Acts of Assembly on the same subject.1 ' The Real Property Limitation Act, 3 & 4 W7. 4, c. 27, (1833), (amended in 1874 by 37 & 38 Vict., c. 57), practically abolished the doctrine of ad- verse possession, or rather of non-adverse possession, as under it posses- sion of any kind for twenty years was made a bar unless there was either a payment of rent or an acknowledgment of some kind by the party in possession. 2 Smith's Lead. Cas. (11th Ed.), 656; Hanson v. Johnson, 62 Md. 27. This act is not mentioned by Mr. Alexander, but its passage is no doubt the reason why his note cites so few English cases, most of those cited being also of a very early date. It may be added that secs. 1 & 2 of the Statute of James were repealed outright by 26 & 27 Vict., c. 125 (1863). The recent English cases therefore on the subject of adverse possession are of little assistance and have been omitted by the present writer. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
| Volume 194, Page 602 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives