2r8i` FEDERAL REPORTER.
On February 23, 1869, James P. 0. purchased the undivided two—tlfths of
one-fifth of the west half of the donation from Hannah M. Smith, it being
the same two—fifths she had purchased from Lownsdale in his life-time; and
afterwards and before the commencement of these suits, all the heirs of
Lownsdale, except the plaintiffs Emma S. and Ida M., conveyed their interests
in the premises to the plaintiff George W. Traver.
Since `September 29, 1849, under the laws of Oregon, an adverse
possession of 20 years was sufficient to bar an action by the owner
for the possession,_until the passage of the act of October 17, 1878,
_ (Sess. Laws, 21,) which limited the time to 10 years; but in all
cases where a cause of action had then accrued, and this period had
expired or would expire within one year from the passage of the act,
an action might be brought within such year.
These suitslwere brought on the last day of the year following the
passage of the act of October_17, 1878, and if they were not barred
by lapse of time at the date of such passage-if 20 years had not
then elapsed since the p1aintiffs’ right of suit accrued——it is admitted
they were brought within the time allowed by law. A
But upon the letter of the statute it appears that even if the right
of suit was barred at the date of its passage, it was thereby revived
l and extended one year therefrom. But Ido not understand that the
S plaintiffs rest their right to sue upon this ground, and the cases will
therefore be»considered upon the assumption that if on October 17,
1878, the period of 20 years had elapsed from the time the right of
suit accrued, the suits are barred. r
· In the consideration of purely equitable rightsand titles a court of
equity is not governed by the statute of limitations. But these suits
are brought upon the legal title of theplaintiffs, and in the determi-
nation of them the limitation applicable to an action at law thereon
will be followed. Hall v. Russell, 3 Sawy. 5M ; Manning v. Hayden,
5 Sawy. 37 9._
When, then, did the plaintiffs' right of suit accrue and when did
the statute of limitations commence to run against it? Manifestly
the cause of suit must have accrued whenever the plaintiffs, or those
under whom they claim, were entitled to the possession of the prem-
ises, and to maintain a suit for partition against any person who
owned an undivided interest therein; and under the facts as to the
possession of the defendants and those under whom they claim, the
» statute commenced to run against such right as soon as it accrued.
The plaintiffs contend that the right of suit accrued upon the giv-
ing of the decree in the partition suit in 1865, under which they claim