Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/411

 FUSSELIi f. HUQHEB. 397 �covered by the Gregg patent, accrued, as we find from the evidence, when possession was taken in 1856. It would have been barred in 1 877 if complainant was under no disability. By the terms of the Ohio statute of limitations "an action for the recovery of the title or pos- session of lands, tenements, or hereditaments can only be brought within 21 years after the cause of action shall have accrued." Eev. St. § 4977. �" If a person entitled to commence such action is, at the time his right or title first descends or accrues, within the age of 21 years, a married womaii, insane, or imprisoned, such person may, after the expiration of 21 years from the time his right or title first descended or accrued, bring such action within 10 years after such disability is removed, and at no time thereaf ter." Section 4978. �It will be perceived, from a careful reading of these provisions of the law, that the action must be brought within 10 years after the dis- ability is removed, unless in cases where that period would termihate less than 21 years from the time the cause of action accrued. The party is entitled to 21 years at least, and as much more in case of being under disability when the statute ^ould otherwise begin to run, as would be neeessary to make 10 years from the removal of the dis- ability. �In these cases the complainant was a married woman in 1856, when her cause of action accrued, if at all, as against those claiming under the Gregg patent. This disability was removed in 1865. Ten years after the removal of her disability, expired in 1875. Twenty- one years after the causes of action accrued, expired in 1877., The suit was not brought within either period, and is therefore barred. �As to the defendants under the Wallace patent, when they took possession in 184e the complainant was 15J years old and her sis- ter 11. The disability was removed and the bar complete long before the institution of these suits. �On these several grounds the bills must be dismissed for want of equity. �The questions raised in respect to the defendants' title are imma- terial, and have hot been noticed; for, unless the complainant is entitled to relief on the ground of some equity of her own, the want of title on the part of the defendants will not supply it. They have a right to rest on their possession alone until some superior claim is established. ��� �