
    Hyacinthe Riopelle vs. Francis Gilman.
    Construction of statutes with reference to tlié time of bringing actions for the recovery of lauds.
    Error to "Wayne Circuit
   Opinion by

Campbell, C. J,

This was an action of ejectnent in which the defendant below moved judgment against the plaintiff, who complains in this Court of certain rulings, which 'are only important in case the suit was not barred by lapse of time. - That question, therefore, was first considered. There "was no dispute in regard to aáverse possession by the defendant for something over twenty two years. There, was it contest as • to a period'before that which extended back to 184G, about tweiity-six years. The dispute, therefore, in the outset, was as to the effect of the statute. The case is governed by sections one and six of the R vis:d Statutes oí 1888, the former providing that “So person shall commence an action for the recovery elf any lands or make any entry thereupon unless within twenty years after the right to make such entry or bring such action,” first accrued or wilhin twenty-five years after he, or those from whom he claims, shall have been seized or possessed of the premise^, except as hereinafter provided.”-

Section six declares that t!,no person shall he deemed to have been in possession of any lands, within the meaning of this chapter, merely by reason of having made an entry thereon, unless he shall have continued in open and peaceable possession of the premises for the space of one year alter such entry, un-, less ati action shall be commenced upon such entry and seizure within one year after he shall be ousted or dispossessed of the premises.’’

The two limitations cannot propely be blended together — The statutes require that every action shall' be brought withirt twenty years from the time it accrued ; also, that a party must bring his action within twenty-five years after disseizin, whethe; the persons in possession during the interim claim from each other or not,-saving only the case where, within one year from, the disseizin an action has been brought against the disseisor. — ' The object is to compel every party disseised to use some diligence. and to bar his entry after twenty-five years’ practical abandonment of his title to strangers. As this cause of action accrued twenty years before.suit was brought, it is barrel at all events, and the other questions become immaterial.

Judgment affirmed with costs.  