Naught v. Oneal, 1 Ill. 36, 1 Breese 36 (1820)

Dec. 1820 · Illinois Supreme Court

1 Ill. 36, 1 Breese 36

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

ERROR TO WHITE.

The of a statute does not affect rights acquired under the repealed statute.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 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 limitations, “ 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 It is a complete bar before the repeal, and the repeal of a statute does not affect the rights acquired under the repealed statute.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(1) Where a statute is repealed, except as to transactions passed and closed, it must be considered as if it had never existed.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.