Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas during a part of December term, 1849, at Austin and a part of Galveston Term, 1851. Volume 5. Page: 56
vii, 332 p. ; 22 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
111-112 SUETPEME CO UTT.
Snoddy v. Cage.
the defendant was within or without the realm, and at the expiration of six
years from the accrual of the cause of action the suit was barred. (17 Ves.,
38; Angell, 532.)
It seems a wide departure from such rigid principles of construction to hold
that aln immigrating debtor should be included under words descriptive of returning
absentees, and to bringl tle foiiner as well as the latter class within
the range of the exception oil any general principles or suppose(l equllities;
is, for instance, that neither of them until their arrival within the limits of the
country was subject to the process of ttle courts. It must be recollected that
when the enlarged construction coltendetl for was originally given to the
phrase " return to the realm," or ratlher when it was deprived of all meaning,
the courts manifested a decided repulgnance to enforce the real objects of tie
statute. The plea was considered discreditable, (1 Pet. R., 351,) and( slight
circumstances were seized upon to avoid its operation. In actions for torts the
construction was always strict, but in those of assumpsit the provisions of the
statute were almost entiely dlisrelgarded. The language was peeremptory that the
action should be con menced six years after thle accrual of the cause, and n1ot after;
and yet it was held that anllu a11uionl to the debt in coltversation, accompanied
with declarations that it would not be paid or that it was barred by the statute,
would be sunffiient to deprive the party of the protection of the statute
on which lie had meant and expressed his intention to rely. Such equitable
construction amountted to a virtual repeal of the statute, and it is not surprising
thalt while the limitations in favor of the debtor were nearly abolished by
judicial construction or presumptions, exceptions inl favor of tle creditor were
enla:ged, an(l that all persons coming into the country should be included
under a description applicable alone to those who had gone abroad and whose
return to the territory might be predicated as a possible event.
Bat without considering further whether the judicial construction of similar
statutory provisions las been compatible [112] with the terms and the plain
andl uniiversal acceptation of the language, let us advert to other sections of
this and other statutes, and ascertain whether such a construction would harmonize
with the provisions and the general policy of the country Is shadowed
forth in its legislation. The thirteenth section of the statute declares that no
:aCtion shall be brought against ally immigrant to the Rlepublic to recover a
claim which was barred by the law of limitations of that country or State
from \which he emigrated, nor shall an action be brought to recover money
fronm an immigrant who was released from its payment by tlih bankrupt or
insolvent laws of the country or State from whence he emigrated. Ti ese provisions
are not to be found in the laws of any other country. In otler States
the law of limitation of tlle forum is alone regarded. If, for instance, a creditor
and debtor, or either, were to remain in Texas for fifty years and tile debt
be barred a dozen times, yet, if they afterwards emigrate to England, the
creditor woull have six Sears to institute his suit, according to the doctrines
laid down in 3 Wilson IR., 145.
The intention of the Legislature to treat the immigrant debtor with marked
favor is man'ifest by offering him tlie benefit of legal defenses not recognized
by ttle laws of other nations. Bit in addition to tllis section, the supplement
to tlie act of limitation exhibits very strikingly the intention of tile Legislature
to favor. or rather treat tile immigraitillg debtor with justice, and to subject,
beyond all misapprehension or construction, foreign claims to the bar of the
limnitations of the statute. The supplement is expressed ill tle followillg
terms: 'That, to prevent difficulty in tite construction of thle act of limitations
passed at tltis session of Conlgress, it is hlereby declared that the said act applies
io less to foreign than to domestic claims." It cannot reasonably be supposed
tlhat tile Congress inteldeldto assert a principle of international law nliversally
recognized, that the limitation liponl actions depends upon tile law of
the country in which tile suits are prosecuted, and not the law of the plaeo
56(
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Texas. Supreme Court. Reports of cases argued and decided in the Supreme Court of the State of Texas during a part of December term, 1849, at Austin and a part of Galveston Term, 1851. Volume 5., book, 1883; St. Louis, Mo.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth28569/m1/64/: accessed May 7, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; .