Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/865

 BOTD V. CLARK 851 �prescription will be enforced in every other state to which the prop- erty may be removed, or wherein the question may arise. �In the P., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Hine, 35 Ohio St. 629, it was held that under an act requiring compensation for causing death by wrong- ful act, neglect, or default, which gave a right of action provided such action should be commenced within two years af ter the death of such deceased person, the proviso was a condition qualifying the right of action, and not a mere limitation on the remedy. The accident occurred on the twenty-fourth of September, 1870. The suit was begun on the twenty-third of January, 1873. In March, 1872, the- act was amended by increasing the amount for which recovery might be had, and by omitting the limitation contained in the proviso, and also by repealing the section as it stood before. The court held that in oreating or giving the right it was within the power of the legisla- ture to impose upon it such restrictions as were thought fit ; and if restrictions were imposed, they must be referred to the newly-created right itself, if the restricted language used would warrant it ; for the- act being in derogation of the common law, any restrictive language used in it must be construed against the right created by it. And it was also suggested that it would have been different if the act were merely remediai as to existing rights. It was further held that the plaintiff's rights must be determined as the act originally stood, and was therefore subject to the restrictions contained in the proviso, and the action, not having been brought within the two years, could not be sustained. The case differs from the one under consid- eration only in the fact that the limitation was contained in a proviso- to the section directing in whose name the action should be brought. In the case of Eastwood v. Kennedy, 44 Md. 563, it was held that where a statuts of the United States for the District of Columbia gave a claim for the recovery of usurious interest, provided suit to recover the same be brought within one year after the payment of such interest, that it would not be competent for a party to recover in Maryland after the lapse of a year, and that the courts of that state were bound to respect and apply the limitations contained i» the act. The cases of Baker v. Stonebraker'a Adm'r, 36 AIo. 349, and Huher v. Stiener, 2 Bing. (N. C.) 202, are somewhat analogous, but throw little additional light upon the question. �To this extent go the authorities, and no further. None of them are eontrolling here. None are precisely upon all-fours' with the case under consideration. We are compelled, then, to deal with it to a cer- tain extent as an original question. The legislature of Ontario has- ��� �