
    Caspar R. Edson vs. Sam. Davis.
    Minors (by the act of 1788,) have five years after their coming of age, to prosecute their claims if to land, and four years if to personal pro ■ perty; and it is the same, whether at the time of their coming of age, . they were within or without the state.
    If the plaintiff commence his action for the recovery of land, within the five years, and such action be nonsuited, discontinued or in any other way be let fall, he or any one claiming under him, may, yet nevertheless, within two years of such nonsuit, &c. commence his second action for the recovery of such lands, and it will not be barred by the statute.
    Trespass to try Title,
    m X HIS was an action of trespass to try titles to two lots of land in the village of Union.
    The plaintiff’s paper title was not disputed, but the defendant relied on the plea of the statute of limitations. To which the plaintiff replied specially his minority and residence out of the state, at the time of his coming of age, and a former suit brought within two years of the letting fall of which the present action was commenced.
    The jury found a verdict for the defendant. -
    A motion was now submitted for a new trial, on the following grounds;
    1st. Because the court misdirected the jury, in stating that the plaintiff was not entitled to more than five years, after he came of age for bringing his action, although he resided at the time out of the state.
    2dly. Because the court misdirected the jury in stating that the,first action could not arrest the statute of limitations.
   Mr. Justice Huger

delivered the opinion of the court.

By the act of 1788, the legislature has destroyed the distinction between minors coming, of age, within or without the state. They are all put upon the same looting. They have five years after coming of age, to prosecute their claims to land, and four years to prosecute any personal action to which they may be entitled. On the first ground therefore the plaintiff must fail.

The act of 1712, usually called the limitation act, provides in the 19th sec. “that should verdict and judgment pass against the plaintiff in such action, or should he suffer a nonsuit, or discontinue, or any other way let fall the same, such verdict or judgment, nonsuit, or discontinuance, or the letting fall the action or suit aforesaid, shall not be conclusive or definitive on the part of such plaintiff,; batatas)’ time within two years, the plaintiff or any person or persons, claiming by, from, or under him, shall have light, and is hereby empowered to commence his action for the recovery of said lands.”

W. Thompson, for the motion.

Herndon, contra.

The second action is connected with the first by the act, provided, it is commenced within two years. As the present action was commenced within that time, the first must be regarded as having arrested the statute; and this I think has been the construction uniformly given to this act. On the second ground, therefore, the motion, must succeed.

Justices Golcock, Nott and Richardson, concurred.

Mr. Justice' Gantt:

I concur on the first ground, but not on the second.  