
    S. & J. Bond, vs. Ann Brown and others.
    
    
      The father of complainants gave to his mother a life estate in the lands in question, remainder to complainants. In 1796, the land ivas sold under a judgment against the mother, as ad-ministratrix of her son, and purchased hy her, and in 1798 conveyed to complainants, who had held possession ever since. The grand-mother of complainants died in 1819. The bill charged that the judgment and sale were irregular and fraudulent. Bill dismissed; the claim being a stale one and barred by the statute of limitations.
    
    The complainants filed their bill for the recovery of a tract of land, which their grand-father, Moses Bond, devised to his son Isom Bond, their father, who devised the same to his mother for life, and to the complainants in remainder. The bill alleges that their grand-mother, after the death of their lather, being his administratrix with the will annexed, procured in the year 1796, a judgment to be obtained, on a pretended debt against the estate of Moses Bond, under which the said land was sold; that she became the purchaser, and afterwards, in the year 1798, sold the same to George Brown, the husband of the defendant Ann, for the purpose of defrauding the complainants of their right.
    The defendant, A. Brown, admitted in her answer the sale of the land to her husband, but denied all fraud, and insisted on the statute of limitations. Mrs. Bond, the grandmother died in 1819. The complainants proved no actual fraud, hut their counsel contended that there was such irregularity in the judgment against Moses Bond, apparent on the proceedings, as was sufficient to render the sale void, and that the possession of the land by the grand-mother and by Brown, ought to be regarded as in trust for the complainants.
   Chancellor JVaties

1 think the claim too stale a one to be open to enquiry. The judgment and sale which are complained-of, took place nearly thirty years ago, and every presumption ought now to be made in favor of the fairness and honesty of both. It is not pretended that the evidence of the alleged fraud has only recentlj come within the knowledge and reach of the complainants; and it cannot be doubted that the possession of the land by the defendants under the sheriff’s gale, Ins been an adversed one-, for they have held under that sale, and it is stated in the bill that the grandmother had procured this, for the purpose of depriving the complainants of their right. It is a case then clearly within the statute, and independently o£ that, 1 should say that the great length of time ought to be conclusive, however well founded the claim may originally have .been. In Deloraine vs. Brown, 3 Bro. C. C. 633, which was a case of gross fraud, the court on the ground of great length of time, refused an account against persons claiming under the fraudulent party; and in the case of Keith vs. Campbell, decided in the court of appeals, although an error in an account .was proved and the discovery of it was recent, yet a lapse of only fifteen years was held a sufficient bar to opening the settlement. The rule has been so settled in numerous other cases, and is founded on the policy of protecting persons against the mischiefs to which they might be exposed by the death of witnesses and! the loss of documents, if required to defend their rights at any indefinite time against antiquated claims. It is therefore ordered and decreed that the bill be dismissed.

Williams and Rogers, for appellants.

A. W. Thompson, contra.

The complainants appealed, and contended that there was no sight of action in complainants until the death of their grandmother in IS 19, who had a life estate in the land by their father’s will, and consequently no adverse possession in the grandmother or her alienee.

Decree affirmed by the whole court.  