Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/26

 Rh 

CTION on the Cae for £802. The Plaintiffs under a power in the Will of Henry Bolter deceaed, had old at public vendue to the Defendant, a houe and lot in the city of Philadelphia for £802, and hortly after tendered him a Deed for it, which the Defendant refued to accept, being advied by council that Bolter had no good Title to the Lot.—Upon which the Plaintiffs brought a pecial Action on the cae for the conideration Money.

On the Trial, in upport of Bolter’s title, the Plaintiffs produced a Patent to Jane Batchelor dated 1694, and a Deed from one Richard Tucker (who had married Jane Batchelor) to John Chambers dated 1685, and deduced a regular title from Chambers down to Bolter. The Plaintiffs acknowledged the defect in the Title, in Tucker’s conveying his Wife’s Etate without her joining in the Deed, but inited on ixty Years Poeion as giving a good Title under the Statue of 32 H. 8. c. 2.

The Council for the Defendant denied the extenion of that Statue, and urged that if the 32 H. 8. extended, the Statue of 21 Ja. 1. c. 16. likewie extended, being both made before the Settlement of the Province, but it appears to have been the Opinion of the Legilature of this Province, that thee Statutes of Limitations did not extend, by their having made an Act to limit peronal Actions in the very Words of the Statute of James. It was likewie contended on the Part of the Defendant, that though the Statute of 32 H. 8. hould be extended, yet this Cae was not within it; because, 1t The Act was made on a preumption that there might have been regular Conveyances and lot, but there it appears there was no Conveyance at all from the Wife by Tucker’s granting for himelf and his Wife.–2d. There is no Proof of ixty Years Poeion, the Witnees for the Plaintiff peaking only to 44 Years back.–3d. The Act of 32 H. 8. does not operate unles ixty Years elaped ince Right of Entry accrued, and here Tucker’s Wife had no Right of Entry till the Death of her Huband, which was in 1708 and not ixty Years ago. There was another point made for the Defendant, that in one of the mene Conveyances, about ixteen Years ago, the Wives of the Grantors had not joined in the Deed, and were now living, and conequently might be limited to Dower. For