
    York vs. Bright.
    The statute of limitations runs in favor of possession of land, and a title therefor, obtained by fraud.
    In 1820, two hundred and twelve acres of land, lying in Van Burén county, was sold by Martin Johnson to Uriah York, which included the land in controversy. He gave York a bond for title. Bright, the defendant in this case, then had possession of the land as tenant of Johnson, and continued his possession under York. In 1823, York sold a part of the 212 acres, by verbal sale, to Bright, and in the same year Bright got a deed from Johnson for a tract of 2-J acres of land, a part of the 212 acres. The six square poles in controversy is a part of the land conveyed by Johnson to Bright. The bill charges, that when U. York sold the 2J acres he reserved the six square poles, on which was a spring, and that Bright by a fraudulent misrepresentation of the contract with U. York, obtained from Johnson a deed for the whole 2-¡- acres. Bright remained in possession some twenty years. His deed had not been registered during this time. U. York sold the . land to his son G. W. York, the present complainant, who obtained possession of the land. Bright instituted an action of ejectment against G. W. York in the Circuit Court of Van Burén county, to enjoin which, and set up his equitable title, the complainant, G. W. York,filed this bill. Bright in his answer denied that he obtained the deed from Johnson .by fraud; alleged he had purchased the whole 2 J acres, and relied upon the statute of limitations. U. York proved he sold him part only of the 2‡ acres, and reserved the six square poles in controversy. It. was heard before Chancellor Ridley, on bill, answer, replication and proof. The Chancellor dismissed the bill, and complainant appealed.
    
      Campbell, for complainant.
    
      Taul, for defendant. •
   GREEN, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

This bill charges, that the complainant is the equitable owner of the six square poles of land in controversy, and that the defendant fraudulently procured a deed to be made to himself by Martin Johnson, in whom the legal title was vested, and prays a devestiture, &c. The defendant pleads the statute of limitations.

The proof shows, that the defendant has been in possession of the land twenty years, claiming it, as his own, by virtue of an unregistered deed from Johnson.

The statute of limitations is clearly a bar to this suit. The fact, that the defendant procured a deed by fraud, if it were so, and fraudulently obtained possession, would make no difference. The statute makes no exception for fraud, and will run in favor of a possession and title obtained by fraud. Affirm the decree.  