
    Thomas Payan v. The United States.
    
      On 2ioiion.
    
    
      An action is brought under the Abandoned or captured x>roperty act, in the name of the assignee. After the right of the assignor to bring an action in his own name has become barred by the statute of limitations, but before trial, it is discovered that the right of action is not legally in the assignee. To save it from being barred by the statute of limitations the claimant moves to substitute his assignor as party claimant.
    
    To save a right of action from being barred by the statute of limitations courts will allow an assignor to be substituted for the assignee as party-plaintiff, and such a substitution will be allowed in a suit under the Abmdoned or captured property act, although the claim of the assignor is already barred by the statute. (And see Green’s Case, post.)-
    
      Messrs. Chase, Hartley, and Coleman in support of the motion.
    Mr. Alexander Johnston opposed.
   Nott, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The claimant’s motion is to substitute the assignor for the assignee in any action under the Abandoned or captured property act, and to allow the same action to proceed in the name of the assignor to the use of the assignee for the recovery of the proceeds of the same captured property. The object of the motion, is to save the right of action from being barred by the statute-of limitations, which would be the case were a new action to be-brought now. The English cases cited by the claimant’s counsel sustain the motion in principle,” (13 Mees & Weis, 556; 6 L. & Eq. B»., 568,) and the case of Cote (3 O. Cls. B., p. 64,) is precisely in point.

The motion is allowed.  