MACHIN v. THOMPSON. VOL. 17 1991 *MACHIN V. THOMPSON The act of limitation of 19th December, 1846 (Digest, page 943), makes no reservation in favor of non-residents or fentmes cost erte,and the courts can make none. (Pryor wife v. Ryburn.) Where a slave is taken off and sold, without the knowledge or consent of the owner ; and the vendee purchases in good faith, for a fair price, without any knowledge of the adverse claim of another, the fraud of his vendor does not attach to him and prevent the operation of the statute. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Ar-kansas County in Chancery.
JAN. TERM, 1856. MACHIN V. THOMPSON. fendant and his partner, Shanks, in The counsel of complainant have re-good faith, without notice of any ad- ferred to the case of Michan Si wife v. verse claim or title to the negro, at her Wyatt, 21 Alabama Rep. 813, as an reasonable cash value in the market ; authority to show that a court of equity and they took from Payne a bill of will exempt a femme converte from the sale with warranty of title. Shanks operation of the statute. The real immediately sold his interest in the complainant in that case, though there girl to Thompson and endorsed a re- called Mrs. Michan, is doubtless, from lease thereof, upon the bill of sale to the facts of the case, the same woman him. She was delivered to him about who is complaining here, under the the first of October, 1843, and in about name of Machin. From the report of three months thereafter he brought her that case, it appears that some of the to Arkansas, and held her in peaceable same family of negroes,the descendants and uninterrupted possession from that of Sarah, were levied upon and sold time to the commencement of this suit, for the debts of the husband of the in Arkansas county, openly and ad- complainant. After the lapse of six versely to all the world. Since defend- years, she and her husband , brought a ant purchased her, she has had two bill against the purchaser, who relied children, Elizabeth and Jim. The value upon the Alabama act of limitation as and hire of the mother and children, a bar ; and the court held that the are also agreed upon. The defendant, suit was not barred, expressly upon the in his answer, relied upon the limita- ground that there was, upon the face tion act of 19th December. 1846, as a of the act, a reservation in favor of bar to the relief sought by the bill. married women. The court dismissed the bill for want It is moreover insisted by the coun-of equity, and the complainant ap- sel of the complainant, that the slave pealed to this court. having been taken from her possession More than five years had elapsed by Payne, and carried off, it was a from the 19th December, 1846, the date fraud upon her rights, and that the of the limitation act relied on (Digest, statute would not run against her, page 943), to the time when this suit until she ascertained where, and in was commenced, during all which whose hands the slave was. period, the defendant held the How the slave got into the posses-peaceable adverse possession of the sion of Payne, does not appear, but it 2019 c4 slaves, under his purchase of is agreed that she was taken off and the woman in the market ; and tbe sold, without the knowledge or consent statute declares, that such possession of the complainant. The bill alleges shall vest in the possessor the right of that she did uot ascertain where the property thereto, as against all persons, woman Celia was, until a short time and may be relied on as a complete before bringing this suit, and the bar to any suit in law or equity. agreement of facts is understood to ad-During all this time, Mrs. Machin mit this to be true. The answer denies was a married woman, and a non-resi- that defendant had any knowledge of dent of the State, but we have held in complainant, or her right to the slave, Pryor & wife v. Ryburn, at the present until G about the time the bill P202 term, that inasmuch as the statute was filed. The case, therefore, stands makes no reservation in favor of such briefly, thus : Payne, in fraud of com-persons, the court can make none.' plainant's rights, took the negro to 1. See not: 1, Pryor v. Ryburn, 16-694, to the Memphis and sold her openly in the ante effect. market ; the defendant purchased her
VOL. 17 in good faith, for a fair price, without be settled by the Legislature, any knowledge of the adverse title of and they have determined it, we the complainant, and afterwards held think, by the form in which the her as his own property, under the .• statute was passed. Scarcely [°203 title thus acquired, until after the any general law san be devised, by the period of limitation ran out. Under imperfect wisdom of man, that will this state of facts, does the fraud of not operate hardly in some cases, how-Payne attach to the defendant, and ever much it may tend to promote the prevent the operation of the statute? public good. If this suit were between Mrs. Ma-The decree bf the court below is af-chin and Payne—if, after fraudulently firmed. running off the negroes, he had reCited:-19-520-655; 22-473; 39-241; 42-122. tained her, and kept his locality concealed from Mrs. Machin, or sold her to another with a full knowledge of the fraud, there are not wanting authorities to sustain the position in reference to general acts of limitation, that Mrs. Machin would he allowed the full period of limitation, in a court of equity, to bring her suit suit after obtaining the information upon which to base it. See the remarks of Mr. Angele on this subject, in his work ou Limitation, chap. 18, page 188, et seq., and the cases collected and reviewed by him. But how far the courts should apply this doctrine to the statute under consideration, or whether at all, it being a statute of title, as well as of limitation, we are not called upon now to decide, because the suit in this case is not agaihst the party committing the fraud, or privy to it, but against one purchasing in good faith, without notice, tic. We find no authority to sustain the position, that the statute would not run in favor of defendant, because his vendor obtained the slave by fraud. It may be a hard case for Mrs. Machin to lose the slave, but it would be equally a hardship, for the defendant to surrender her and her children, with an account of hire for more than ten years after purchasing the woman in the market at her full value, and in good faith. Upon whom the loss should fall in such cases, was a question of public policy, to
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.