
    Hiram Cook et al. vs. David Kendall et al.
    . Tbe Legislature Las not the power to deny a remedy, or cut off an existing right of action; but subject to this limitation its power to enlarge or lessen the time — at least before the statute has barred a right of action— or to establish a limitation cannot be questioned.
    A statute of limitation affects only the remedy, and therefore every case must be governed, by. the law in force on that subject, when suit is brought.
    A law limiting the time for commencing an action for dmnages does not cover actions to abate or enjoin a nuisance.
    The plaintiffs were the owners of a grist-mill and'dam erected by them in 186J on a stream of water flowing from Labe "Washington, in Le Sueur county, and constituting its outlet. They brought this suit in the District Court for that county, alléging that in January,-1868, by the acts of the defendants, the water was dammed up and obstructed, at the outlet of said lake above plaintiff’s mill,, so as to stop its natural flow, and prevent the running of plaintiff’s mill. They demanded the damages resulting from the stopping of the mill, and .that a writ of injunction issue restraining the defendants from, obstructing the flow of the water of Lake Washington from its natural passage, to the plaintiffs’ mill, &c. A temporary writ of injunction was granted and issued. The defendants answered, setting up substantially, among other things, for a defense : Tha't defendant David Kendall has been the owner of, and operated a mill and dam on tlie said stream above tbe plaintiffs’ mill and dam, with a dam built at tbe outlet of said lake for tbe purpose of creating a reservoir in said lake,, for more than ten years, which constitute the acts complained of; and that no suit at law or in equity had been instituted or maintained within said ten years, in any Court, for the recovery of any damages occasioned by the erection of said ■ mill or dams by any person or persons whatever. To this defense the plaintiffs demurred. A motion was made by defendants upon the pleadings to set aside the temporary injunction. The Court modified the injunction, but refused to set it aside. The defendants appeal from the order of the Court below on this motion. There were other defenses to the action, and the motion to set aside the injunction was also based upon other matters in the pleadings, but as the only question urged or discussed upon the appeal was that the action was barréd by the statute of limitations, it is unnecessary to state them.
    E. St. Julien Cox for Appellants.
    Charles S. Bryant and Hanscome & Wallin for Re-, spondents.
   Wilson, Oh. J.

By the Court This is an appeal from an order modifying an injunction.

The only ground for the appeal urged is that the action is barred by the statute of limitations, and the case of Eastman vs. St. Anthony Falls Water Power Co., 12 Minn., 137; and Sec. 17, chap. 31, Gen. Stat., are relied on in support of the appellants’ views. The decision referred to only holds that Seo. 12, Chap. 60, Comp. Stat., limited the time for commencing an action of this kind to ten years after the cause of action arose. But that section was repealed'in 1866, before this plaintiff had a right of action, and before the statute had barred an action to abate the nuisance here complained of. It therefore does not apply to this case. The legislature has not the power to deny a remedy, or cut off an existing right of action ; but subject to this limitation its power to enlarge or lessen the time — at least before the statute has barred a right of action — or to establish a limitation can not be questioned. A statute of limitation, affects only the remedy, and therefore every case must be governed by the law in force when suit is brought. Holcomb vs. Tracy, 2 Minn., 345 ; Burwell vs. Tullis, 12 Minn., 577; Penniman vs. Ritch, 3 Met., 218.

Section 17, chap. 31, Gen. Stat., is inapplicable. It relates only to an action for damages, and cannot by construction be extended to an action to abate or enjoin a nuisance. Bedel vs. Janney, 4 Gilman, 193; Hazel vs. Shelby, 11 Ill., 9.

Order affirmed.  