
    *Robert Ridley and another v. John Hettman et al.
    Equity ordinarily acts in analogy to the law in giving effect to the statute of limitations.
    Therefore, where the owner of an elder entry and junior patent, who was never in the state, dies with an adverse possession under a junior entry and elder patent against him, equity, after the lapse of twenty years from his death, will allow the act of limitation to be set up as a bar against his heirs seeking to get in the legal title under the elder entry
    This is a bill in chancery, from the county of Clermont.
    The complainants are the heirs at law of Thomas Ridley. By virtue of a military warrant granted by the State of Yirginia to Tliomas Ridley, an entry was made of 166§ acres of land, situate between the Little Miami and Scioto rivers, in the county of Clermont, which is in these words: “No. 3,406. Tbos. Ridley enters 166§ acres of land on part of a military warrant No. 4,676, on the waters of the east fork of the Little Miami, beginning at the lower back corner of Nathaniel Darby's entry No. 2,058, running N. 43, 200 polos, thence N. 47 "W. at right angles for quantity.” This entry was surveyed December 17, 1798, and patented to Thos. Ridley September 17, 1806. On June 12, 1800, Francis Peyton made an entry or location of 600 acres in the following words: “No. 3,856. Francis Peyton enters 600 acres of land on part of a military warrant No. 3,234, on the waters of the east fork of the Little Miami, beginning at a sugar tree, ash, and dogwood, in the line of G-eo. Matthhws’ survey No. 3,814, running south with Matthews’ line to his south-east corner; thence west to the line of Jas. Meriwether’s survey No. 1,136 ; thence south and from the beginning east with the line of Herrons, 200 poles to the line of Tarlton Fleming’s entry No. 3,855 ; thence with his line to the line of Nathaniel Darby’s survey No. 2,058; thence with his line S. 43 W. so far that a line west will include tho quantity.” The bill charges that afterward this last entry was fraudulently surveyed so as to include and cover part of Ridley’s entry, and a patent issued thereon to Henry Massie, who was assignee of the survey, and that the legal title is thus vested in the defendants.
    525] *The answer admits the entry and surveys of Francis Peyton and the issuing of the patent. It requires proof that the entry is sufficiently special, and that it has been 'Surveyed according to law. They aver that they and those under whom they claim have been in the quiet possession of the land, claiming' to hold the title thereto for upward of thirty years, and have regularly paid all taxes.
    The cash was argued by Fox, for the plaintiffs, and Marshall & Hamer, for the defendants ; but as tho decision of the court rests upon other grounds than those taken in argument, the discussion of counsel is omitted.
   Grimke, J.

It is very evident from the survey made in the cause, that the patent and survey of Peyton under which the defendants .claim, covers the land in controversy. But as the defendants claim under the oldest patent, the complainants, in order to obtain tnat legal title, must show a superior equity to the land. And this would-render it necessary to enter into an inquiry concerning the nature of that title, and among other things to ascertain whether a call for an entry may not be construed to mean a call for a survey.

But there is one circumstance which entirely dispenses with any investigation of that kind, and must cut the case short before arriving at that stage. The defendants in their answer rely expressly npon the statute of limitations as a bar to the complainants’ relief. The complainants, on the other hand, have taken proof, the object of which is to bring them within the saving clause of the statute. But in so doing they have proved too much. They show that not only Thomas Ridley, to whom the patent issued in 1806, never was in the State of Ohio, but that the two persons to whom the property has descended, Francis Ridley and Thomas Ridley, were never either of them in the State of Ohio. This is completely established by the deposition of a witness who proves that Thomas Ridley, the elder, died abroad a great many years ago; that Francis I. and Thomas Ridley were his sole heirs > that Francis *died soon after his father, leaving Francis I. [528 his sole heir, and that neither ho nor Thomas Ridley, Jr., were over in this state. The consequence is, that the case falls directly within the determination already made at this term in the ejectment suit of Whitney v. Webb et al. The principle there decided was that successsive or cumulative disabilities in different persons are not within the true intent and meaning of the proviso in the statute of limitations; that where the person to whom the right has accrued is beyond the state, the statute does not commence running against him until he comes into the state; but that if he dies abroad, his heirs can not unite their disability to his, so as to bring them within the protection of the law. It was shown in the case I have referred to, that any other construction would involve the greatest absurdity, and be productive of incalculable mischief; that a controversy, instead of having some limit put to it, might be protracted to an indefinite length of time, for each person to whom successively the right accrued, might bo a nonresident, an infant, feme covert, or insane. The principle there determined is then decisive of the present case, and the bill must be dismissed. Bill dismissed. 
      
      Ante, 513.
     