Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/290

 278 FEDERAL REPORTER. �seefcs to recover in this proceeding. Nevertheless, it is very eamestly contended in her behalf that her right to demand this money is not to be disputed by the assignee, because he did not, within the two years limited by section 5057 of the Jievised Statutes, proceed by suit at law or in equity to reeover the copyright from the petitioner, or to have the trans- fer to her set aside. It is said her title to the copyright is not now assailable by any direct proceeding, and therefore that the assignee is estopped from calling it in question or denying her claim to the fruits of the copyright. The argu- ment may be ingenious, but surely it is fallacious as applied here. It amounts to this : that because the statute of limita- tions bas barred a suit against the petitioner, the righteous defence of the assignee to a demand which (if his statements are true) is totally devoid of justice lias been taken a,way. This would be to give to the statute of limitations, when it haa once closed, the force of a judicial decree establishing con- clusively the rights of the parties. But such is not its oper- ation. Statutes of limitation operate upon the remedy, not the title. Leasure v. Mahoning Toicnship, 8 Watts, 551 ; Mc- Candless' Estate, 61 Pa. St. 9 ; Hegarty's Appeal, 75 Pa. St. 503. �To avoid misapprehension I desire to add that I am not to be understood as expressing any opinion upon the merita of this claim. Upon investigation it may appear to be entirely faix and valid. The allegations of the assignee against its fairness are to be proved. AU that now is decided is that in the face of the assigaee's answer the court cannot make the order asked for. �The rule to show cause will be discharged without preju- dice to the right of Mrs. English to prosecute her petition or to pursue any other appropriate remedy for the recovery oi the royally claimed. So ordered. ��� �