clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e

PLEASE NOTE: The searchable text below was computer generated and may contain typographical errors. Numerical typos are particularly troubling. Click “View pdf” to see the original document.

  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search
search for:
clear space
white space
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
Volume 194, Page 623   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space

21 JAC. 1, CAP. 16, LIMITATIONS. 623
since the death of the person last seised. It was contended that her title
accrued only on the death of her brother, the time of which had been
found by the jury, that the first section gave a party twenty years after
his title first accrued to make his entry, and that the object of the second
section was to extend, not to limit, the time of entry given by the first
section. The second section, therefore, was intended to allow every person
at least twenty years after his title accrued, if there was a continuing
disability from the death of the ancestor last seised, and ten years more to
the heir of the person dying under a disability, which ten years are in
addition to the twenty years allowed by the first section. But Lord Ellen-
borough said that the time for making an entry might be indefinitely ex-
tended if such a construction were adopted, and that there was no calculat-
ing how far it might be carried by parents and children dying under age,
or continuing under other disabilities in succession. "The brother, through
•whom the lessor of the plaintiff claimed, being under the disability of non-
age at the time of his father's death, when his title first accrued, and
dying under that disability, it appears to me that the proviso in the second
clause (where resort is to be had to it to extend the period for making
an entry beyond the twenty years) required her to make her entry within
ten years after his death, and not having done so the ejectment is brought
too late. The word death in that clause must mean and refer to the death
of the person to whom, the right first accrued and whose heir the claimant
is; and the Statute meant that the heir of every person, to which person
a right of entry had accrued during any of the disabilities there stated,
should have ten years from the death of his ancestor, to whom the right
first accrued during the period of disability and who died under such dis-
ability, (notwithstanding the twenty years from the first accruing of the
title to the ancestor should have before expired)."s0 And Lawrence J.
added, that the Statute gives to a party, to whom a right of entry accrues
and who is under a disability at the time, ten years after the disability
removed, notwithstanding the twenty years should have elapsed after his
title first accrued;51 and to his heir the Statute gives ten years after the
death of such party dying under the disability.62
50
Quoted with approval in Carter v. Woolfork, 71 Md. 291.
81 But where the disability ceases while the twenty years are running,
the ten years given to the person under disability runs concurrently with
the twenty and not successively to it. Wickes v. Wickes, 98 Md. 326;
Merryman v. Cumberland Co., 98 Md. 227; Kopp v. Herrman, 82 Md. 350.
52
The leading case on this point in Maryland is Carter v. Woolfork, 71
Md. 292. The rule is clearly stated by Judge Bryan as follows: "We
think that where a disability exists at the time when a right of entry on
land accrues, and the person entitled dies during the disability, the heir
has ten years to make his entry; and that he is not barred then unless
twenty years have elapsed since the right of entry first accrued. In
other words he is entitled to twenty years from the origin of the title,
and ten years from the death of the ancestor; but that these limitations
run concurrently and not successively. We also think that no disability of
the heir can protract these periods, or postpone the running of limita-
tions." Affirmed in Baumeister v. Silver, 98 Md. 424. The same con-
struction of the statute was applied in Davis v. Coblens, 174 U. S. 719.

 
clear space
clear space
white space

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 623   View pdf image (33K)
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


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.

©Copyright  Cannot perform flastmod(): Win32 Error Code = 2

Maryland State Archives