30 rnnmmm . nnrommn.
of his residence and cultivation, because, as they allege, the surveyor
general then divided the donationbetween the husband and the wife,
as required by-section 4 of said act, and thereupon the statuteof
limitations commenced to run against the wife in; favor of the de-
fendantsfgrantors then in the adverse possession of block 254.
The plea and argument of the defendants assume that the chil-
dren and survivor of Nancy took the west half of the donation as her
heirs, and are therefore in privity with her, and bound by her acts
or conduct while living, and thevwife of the settler, Lownsdale. But
the law, so far as this court is concerned, is held otherwise. Upon
the death .of Nancy, her "share’ or interest" in the donation was
given by section 4 of the act to her husband and children in equal
parts, and they took under the donation act as the direct donees of
. the United States, and not as the heirs of Nancy, whose interest in
- . the premises, whatever it was, terminated with her death. Fields v.
5 Squires, 1 Deady, 382.
But even if they took as the heirs of Nancy, or in any sense, by,
through, or under her, the result, so far as this plea is concerned,
must be the same. She was a married woman when the donation
act passed, and continued to be one up to the time of her death. All
the statutes of limitation ever in force in Oregon, from that contained
in the "Steam-boat Act" of September 29, 1849, and taken from the
Revised Statutes of Iowa (p. 384) of 1843 down to the present one,
have provided that the statute should not commence to run against a
married woman during her marriage. It may, then, be taken for
granted that whether Nancy’s husband and children took the western
half of the donation as the direct donees of the United States or as
her successors in interestyor that whatever possession those under
whom the defendants claim may have had of this property before the
death of Nancy, the statute of limitations did not commence torun
in their favor until the death of Nancy-—-April 15, 1854.
Did it commence to run then, and if not, when? On September
29, 1853, the settler, Lownsdale, made his nnal proof of the residence
and cultivation required by the act, and had otherwise conformed
thereto, so that accordingto the construction given to the donation
act by the supreme court in Hall v.*Russell, 101 U. S. 503, as soon
V thereafter as it was ascertained by the proper authority that this
proof was sufficient, he became a qualined grantee thereunder, and
the right to the one-half of the donation was then vested in him.
And, for the same reason, Nancy also became a granteeand entitled
to one-half of the donation, provided she did not die before the pat-