Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/466

 454 FEDEEAL BBPOBTER. �"Who was responsible for this long delay ? Hammond's position was, however, readily ascertainable from 1819. The plaintiff might, if she had any rights against him, have pursued them before 1830, and prior to Hammond's death. Because she ■was involved in a legal controversy with others, did the stat- ute as to Hammond ceaae to run, whereby, after the lapse of more than a half century, she can pursue the Hammond estate ? If so, then every person not a party to a suit must be held bound by its outcome, despite the statute of limita- tion ; and thus the statutes of limitation become futile. �Eeference bas been made to certain decrees and judgments entered in favor of plaintiff by the United States circuit court in Louisiana. The facts and circumstances under which those decisions were had are unknown to this court. The cases seem tb have been for the reoovery of the possession of realty devised to her under the will of 1813, despite the sale made by Eelf, Chew, and Mary Clark under the will of 1811. So, here, the property belonging to Daniel Clark's estate, sold by Hammond prior to 1819, (he acting as agent for Eelf, Chew, and Mary Clark,) may in law belong to this plaintiff, unless her rights thereto are barred; but she is not seeking to recover said realty, but the amount paid to Hammond for said void transfers. It may be that the statute of limitations would bar any suit against the purchasers from Hammond; but, whether such be the fact or not, it is not seen how she can recover from Hammond's heirs the money judgment claimed by her, and have the same made a charge upon the lands which came to his heirs under the act of 1864. Again, her excuse for not proceeding in this matter at an earlier date, even if the same were valid, is met by the fact that in 1848 she filed a bill in this court wherein it appears that she was fully informed of ail the facts that it is now averred she did not discover until a date long subsequent. In no possible view of the case, as presented by the bill, bas she any right to maintain the same. �The demurrer is sustaiued and the bill dismissed. ��� �