
    Lessee of Hugh Neilly against Benjamin M'Cormick.
    An improvement right is barred by the limitation act of 26th March l^S, if there has boon no possession within seven years, though an indictment of forcible entry and detainer has been found against the defendant, and tlio lands lie on the frontiers.
    This wms an ejectment for 400 acres of land, brought on a mere improvement right.
    A witness proved, that the lessor of the plaintiff had a small nursery and trees deadened on the land, about twenty-two years before the bringing of this suit.
    Messrs. J. Boss and Woods objected for the defendant,
    that the action cannot be maintained on the prior settlement right, without other title, unless the plaintiff, his ancestors or predecessors have had the quiet and peaceable possession, within seven years next before bringing the action, under tbe limitation act of the 26th March ■ 1785, § 5. 2 Dali. St. Law, 281.
    Mr. Brackenridge for the plaintiff,
    answered, that an inquisition of forcible entry and detainer had been found many years ago against the defendant in Washington county, and liad been removed to the Supreme Court, where it remained untried, and that consequently the possession of the defendant must be deemed tortious; and moreover this was a case on the frontiers, where the inhabitants had been driven off by the savages.
   Sed per gut.

Why have you not gone with your indictment, and obtained possession thereon? If you have been forced from the lands by Indians or others, you might have brought your ejectment before the 26 th March 1790. The case is clearly within the limitation act. The courts not being open, has been held no answer to it. 1 Lev. 31. 2 Salk. 420. 1 Keb. 157. When the time once begins, it runs over all mesne acts, such as coverture and infancy. 1 Stra. 556. Plowd. 355. 4 Term Rep. 306, 310, 311, 312.

Plaintiff nonsuit.  