LIMITATION. 
726 
try, or other pofTeffory aflions real, of the feifm of one’s 
anceftors in lands ; and either of their feifin or one’s own, 
in rents, fuits, and fervices 5 fifty years. And in adlions 
real for lands grounded upon one’s own feifin or poffef- 
fion, fuch poffeflion muft have been within thirty years. 
By fiat. 1 Mary II. c. 5, this limitation does not extend 
to any fuit for advowfons. 
By fiat, 21 Jac. I. c. 2, a time of limitation was ex¬ 
tended to the cafe of the king, viz. fixty years precedent 
to February 19, 1623. 3 Injl. 189. But, this becoming 
ineffectual by efflux of time, the fame term of limitation 
was fixed, by fiat. 9 Geo. III. c. 16, (extended to Ireland 
by 48 Geo. III. c. 47,) to commence and be reckoned 
backwards, from the time of bringing any fuit or other 
procefs, to recover the thing in queftion ; fo that a pof¬ 
feflion for fixty years is now a bar even againff royal pre¬ 
rogative, in derogation of the ancient maxim, Nullum tem~ 
pus cccurrit regi. See the article King, vol. xi. p. 733. 
By fiat. 21 Jac. I. c. 16, the time of limitation in any 
writ of formedon is twenty years ; and, by a legal confe- 
quence, the fame term is alio the limitation in every ac¬ 
tion of ejeCtment. And by fiat. 4 and 5 Ann. c. 16, no 
entry fhall be of force to fatisfy the faid ftatute of limita¬ 
tions, or to avoid a fine levied of lands, unlels an aftion 
be thereupon commenced within one year after, and profe- 
cuted with effedt. See Ejectment, and Entry. 
By the fame ftatute, 21 Jac. I. c. 16, which is ufually 
termed emphatically The Statute of Limitations, all actions 
of trefpafs, ( quart claufum fregit, or otherwise,) detinue, 
trover, replevin, account, and cafe, (except upon accounts 
between merchants,) debt on fimple contradt, or for ar¬ 
rears of rent, are limited to fix years after the caufe of 
aCtion commenced. ACtions of a (fault, menace, battery, 
mayhem, and imprifonment, muft be brought within four 
years; and aftions for words within two years after the 
injury committed. 
Under the head of aSlions upon the cafe, are included ac¬ 
tions for libels, criminal converfation, feduCtion, and for 
fuch words as are not aCtionable without a fpecial damage. 
It hath been adjudged, that an action of debt on fiat. 2 
and 3 Edw. VI. c. 13, for not fetting out tithes, is not 
within the ftatute ; the aCtion being grounded on an aCl 
of parliament, which is the higheft record. So an adlion 
of debt for rent referved on a leafe by indenture is out of 
the ftatute, the leafe by indenture being equal to a fpeci- 
alty. Alfo an aCtion of debt for an efcape is not within 
the ftatute ; not only becaufe it is founded in maleficio, and 
arifes on a contract in law, which is different from thofe 
aCtions of debt on a lending or contraCt mentioned in the 
ftatute, but alfo becaufe it is grounded on ftat. 1 Rich. II. 
«. 12, which firft gave an action of debt for an efcape, 
there being no remedy for creditors before, but by aCtion 
on the cafe. So this ftatute cannot be pleaded to an ac¬ 
tion of debt brought againft a flieriff for money by him 
levied on a fieri facias ; becaufe the aCtion is founded in 
maleficio, as alfo upon the judgment on which the fierifa¬ 
cias ilfued, which is a matter of record. An aCtion of 
debt on an award under the hand and feal of the arbitra¬ 
tors, though the fubmiffion was by parol, is not within 
the ftatute. An aCtion of debt for a fine of a copyholder 
is not within the ftatute. 
This ftatute cannot be a bar unlefs the fix years are ex¬ 
pired after there hath been complete caufe of aCtion; as 
if a man promife to pay iol. to J. S. when he comes from 
Rome, or when he marries, and ten years after J. S. mar¬ 
ries, or comes from Rome, the right of aCtion accrues 
from the happening of the contingency; from which time 
the ftatute (hall be a bar, and not from the time of the 
promife. Godb. 437. So in an aCtion on the cafe wherein 
the plaintiff' declared, that, in confideration that he would 
forbear to fue the defendant for fome (heep killed by the 
defendant’s dog, the defendant promifed to make him fa- 
tisfaCtion upon requeft, and that at fuch a time he re- 
quelted, &c. it was held, that the right of aCtion accrued 
from the requeft, not from the time of killing the (heep; 
that therefore the defendant could not plead the ftatute 
of limitations, the requeft being within fix years, though 
the killing the (heep and promife of (atisfaCtion was long 
before. 1 Keb. 177. So if a note or bill of exchange is 
given, payable at a certain time after date, the caule of 
action does not accrue until after the expiration of the 
time fpecified; and, if an aCtion is brought within fix 
years after that time, the ftatute is not a bar. But, if the 
luit is not commenced within fix years after that time, 
the defendant may plead that the caufe of adion did not 
accrue within fix years, but he muft not plead that he did 
not promife within fix years, i. e. if he is the perfon firft lia¬ 
ble to the payment, becaufe the promife is made at the 
time of making the note, See. It may be otherwife in the 
ca(e of an indorfer, who is not liable until default made 
by the drawer of the note, or acceptor of the bill; but in 
his cafe. Non accreviuinfra fex annos, is a fafe and good plea. 
It is clearly agreed, that, if after the fix years the debtor 
acknowledges the debt, and promifes payment, this re¬ 
vives it, and brings it out of the ltatute. Alfo it hath 
been adjudged, that a conditional promife will revive a debt 
barred by the ftatute of limitations; as where to an ajfumpfit. 
by an executor for goods fold and delivered by the tella- 
tor, the defendant pleaded the ftatute, and upon evidsnee 
it appeared, that the defendant within fix years, being 
applied to by the executor for the debt, faid, “ If you 
prove that I have the goods, I will pay you;” which be¬ 
ing fully proved at the trial, it was held that this condi¬ 
tional promife revived the debt; and that, though made 
to the executor, after the death of the teltator, it was fuf- 
ficient to maintain the iffue; becaufe the promife did not 
give any new caufe of aClion, but only revived the old 
caufe, and was of no other ufe but to prevent the bar 
by the ftatute of limitations. So it hath been held that a 
bare acknowledgment of the debt within fix years of the ac¬ 
tion, is fufficient to revive it, and prevent the ftatute, 
though no promife was made. Carth. 470. Alfo it hath 
been ruled in equity, that if a man has a debt due to him 
by note, or a book-debt, and has made no demand of it 
for fix years, fp that he is barred by the ftatute of limits 
tions ; yet if the debtor, or his executor, after the fix 
years, puts out an advertifement in the Gazette, or any 
other newfpaper, that all perfons who have any debts ow¬ 
ing to them may apply to fuch a place, and that they (liall 
be paid; this (though general, and therefore might be in¬ 
tended of legal fubfifting debts only) yet amounts to fuch 
an acknowledgment of that debt which was barred, as 
will revive the right, and bring it out of the ftatute again. 
Abr. Eq. 305. In (horr, any acknowledgment of the ex- 
iltence of the debt, however flight, will take it out of 
the ftatute, and the limitation will then run from that 
time; and, where an exprefiion is ambiguous, it (hall be 
left to the confideration of the jury, whether it amounts 
or not to fuch acknowledgment. 2 Term Rep. 760. It is 
faid in general, that where one brings an adtion before 
the expiration of fix years, and dies before judgment, the 
fix years being-then expired, this (hall not prevent his 
executor. But the executor fliould make a recent prole- 
cutiori, to which the claule in the ftatute, § 4, that pro¬ 
vides a year after the reverfal of a judgment, &c. may be 
a good dirediion, or (how that he came as early as he could. 
Under the equity of the above-mentioned fedtion, in all 
cafes of executors, if the fix years be not elapfed at the 
time of the teftator’s death, and the executor takes out 
proper procefs within the year, it will fave the bar by rea- 
fon of the limitation, even though the fix years, within 
which the demand accrued, be elapfed before procefs fued 
out. Bull. N.P. 130. Cawer v. James, Trin. 15 Geo. II. B. C. 
If there be no executor againft whom the plaintiff may 
bring his adiion, he (hall not be prejudiced by the ftatute 
of limitations, nor (liall any laches in fuch cafe be im¬ 
puted to him. 2 Tern. 695. 
It has been a matter of much controverfy, whether the 
exception relative to merchants’ accounts extends to all 
tiftions and accounts relating to merchants and merchan- 
dife 9 
