White County IL Archives Court.....Naught, V Oneal 1819-31
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarch.org/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarch.org/il/ilfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 May 27, 2008, 11:17 pm

Source: Reports Of Cases Illinois
Written: 1819-31

December Term 1820, Vandalia.

George Naught, Plaintiff in Error, v. Hezekiah Oneal, Defendant in Error.

ERROR TO WHITE.

The repeal of a statute does not affect rights acquired under the repealed 
statute.

In an action of slander, if the words were spoken within one year before the 
repeal of the statute limiting such actions, the old statute will be no bar.

This was an action of slander brought in the circuit court of White county, by 
Naught v. Oneal. The defendant pleaded the statute of limitation, "that the 
cause of action did not accrue within one year from the commencement of the 
suit." The plaintiff replied that the words were not spoken within one year 
previous to the commencement of the suit, but that the action was commenced 
within one year from the passage of the act of limitations. To this 
replication the defendant demurred, and the plaintiff joined in demurrer. The 
court sustained the demurrer, and from that judgment the plaintiff brought 
this writ of error.

Per curiam. If the cause of action accrued one year or more before the repeal 
of the statute of limitations,* still, the old statute of limitations is a 
good bar to the action. It is a complete bar before the repeal, and the repeal 
of a statute does not affect the rights acquired under the repealed statute.

If the words in this case were spoken within one year before the repeal of the 
statute, the old statute will be no bar. But as, in this action, it does not 
appear at what time the words were spoken, it can not be determined whether 
the old statute be a bar or not. The judgment of the court must be reversed, 
and the cause remanded for new proceedings to ascertain the time when the 
words were spoken. (1)

Judgment reversed.

------------------
*Laws of 1819, page 351. Ib. 141, sect. 8.

(1) Where a statute is repealed, except as to transactions passed and closed, 
it must be considered as if it had never existed. Ill. and Michigan Canal v. 
City of Chicago, 14 Ill., 335. In the construction of statutes of limitations, 
the rule is, that cases within the reason, but not within the words of the 
statute, are not barred, Bedell v. Janney et al., 4 Gilm., 208. A statute of 
limitations will not be, applied to cases not clearly within its provisions. 
Hazell v. Shelby, 11 Ill., 9. See note to Mellick v. De Seelhorst, post.

Note.—I have not been able to find any case decided at December term, 1821, 
except the case of Moreland v. Pierson, from Gallatin. There, were two points 
made in that case, 1, as it regarded the sufficiency of the breach in the 
declaration; and 2, the exclusion of a deposition from the jury. The judgment 
of the court below was affirmed. The case is one of no importance, and is 
therefore not reported.

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases at Common Law and in Chancery, Argued and Determined in the 
Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, From its First Organization in 1819, 
to the End of December Term, 1831. By Sidney Breese, Counsellor at Law. Second 
Edition, with Additional Notes, By Edwin Beecher. Chicago: Callaghan & 
Company, 1877.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/il/white/court/naught198gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ilfiles/

File size: 3.7 Kb