The Effect of War on the Operation of Statutes of Limitation

Front Cover
Harvard law review association, 1915 - Entail - 682 pages
 

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Selected pages

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

Popular passages

Page 680 - To declare abolished, suspended, or inadmissible in a Court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party. A belligerent is likewise forbidden to compel the nationals of the hostile party...
Page 674 - J., delivered the opinion of the court as follows: This suit was brought by the plaintiff, a merchant of Pennsylvania, against the defendant, a merchant of Maryland, upon an account which grew out of their trade with each other as merchants. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitations, to which the plaintiff replied that the plaintiff, who resided in the state of Pennsylvania, and the defendant were employed in mutual trade and merchandise, of and concerning which the said several sums of money...
Page 680 - When a person shall be an alien, subject or citizen of a country at war with the United States, the time of the continuance of the war shall not be a part of the period limited for the commencement of the action...
Page 678 - Statutes of Limitation, in fixing a period within which rights of action must be asserted, proceed upon the principle that the courts of the country where the person to be prosecuted resides, or the property to be reached is situated, are open during the prescribed period to the suitor. The principle of public law which closes the courts of a country to a public enemy during war, renders compliance by him with such a statute impossible. As is well said in the recent case of Semmes v.
Page 679 - That case laid down the proposition that when a citizen of a state, adhering during that war to the national cause, brought suit afterwards against a citizen residing, during the war, within the limits of an insurrectionary state, the period during which the plaintiff was prevented from suing by the state of hostilities, should be deducted from the time necessary to bar the action under the statute of limitations. It decided nothing more than this. It did not even decide that a similar rule was applicable...
Page 673 - that the Statute of Limitations (21 Jac. I., c. 16, 7) is no bar to a party, whether he be a subject of the realm or a foreigner, who was not in England at the time the cause of action occurred, and who continues resident abroad.
Page 676 - This suspension being by the exercise of the paramount authority of the government, cannot be held to work a forfeiture of the plaintiff's cause of action, but his right to sue. suspended by the war, revived when it ceased...
Page 679 - alien enemy' is a bar to a bill for relief in equity as well as to an action at law, but it would seem not sustainable to a mere bill for discovery for as an alien enemy may be sued at law and may have process to compel the appearance of his witnesses so he may have the benefit of a discovery.
Page 677 - Modern, 205, are of the same class, and to the same effect. All of those decisions were made between parties who were citizens of the same jurisdiction, and most of them were made nearly a hundred years before the international rule was acknowledged, that war only suspended debts due to an enemy, and that peace had the effect to restore the remedy. The rule of the present day is, that debts existing prior to the war, but which made no part of the reasons for undertaking it, remain entire, and the...
Page 679 - Whatever may be the extent of the disability of an alien enemy to sue in the courts of the hostile country, it is clear that he is liable to be sued, and this carries with it the right to use all the means and appliances of defence.

Bibliographic information