Murray v. Gibson

THIS case came up from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Mississippi, upon a certificate of division in opinion between the judges thereof.

The case is fully stated in the opinion of the court.

It was argued by Mr. May, for the plaintiff, who made the following points.

First. That the Federal courts will be governed by the State law of limitations in the forum where the suit was instituted, that is, by the law of Mississippi in this case. See Green v. Neal, 6 Peters, 291; Harpending v. The Dutch Church, 16 Peters, 455; Porterfield v. Clark, 2 Howard, 76.

Second. That in construing the statutes of limitations of Mississippi, this court will conform to, and adopt the exposition thereof made by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, and in the event of contradictory or inconsistent decisions by that court, the last decision will be preferred and followed, even though it may be opposed to a former decision of this court. Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Wheat. 152; Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley, 2 Peters, 492; United States v. Morrison, 4 Peters, 124; Green v. Neal, 6 Peters, 291.

Third. That the plea is defective under the act of limitations of Mississippi, passed March 5th, 1846. She Hutch. Code, 833.

Because that statute is inapplicable to an action on a judgment rendered, as this was anterior to its passage, and it was so adjudged by the Supreme Court of Mississippi. See Boyd, &c. v. Barrenger, &c., 1 Cushman's Mississippi Reports, 269.

Fourth. That said plea is equally defective under the 14th sect. act of Mississippi of 1844. See the act in Hutch. Code, 832.

Because the plea does not aver that two years or more had expired from the passage of said last act, before the institution of this suit, as the said act requires, and as the Supreme Court of Mississippi also ruled it should have done, in the same case of Boyd, &c. v. Barrenger, 1 Cushman's Reports, 269.

Mr. Justice DANIEL delivered the opinion of the court.