Hammond v. Denton

It was admitted that the act ought to be construed secun* dum subjectam materiam, and that indeed no act can be ²⁰⁴ construed otherwise; and it was further said, that supposing the subject matter to be the limitation of time for the commencing of actions, our construction is correspondent to it, for the limiting of the time when the bond shall be given in evidence, necessarily limits the time for the commencing of the action. That there is no absurdity in a double limitation to different purposes, and that the limitations have their effect to different purposes; but the construction on the other side rejects all the words or admitted in evidence. That where the trial is not in twelve years from the date of the bond,, the plaintiff may be chargeable with neglect, for a plaintiff may compel the defendant to a trial within two years from the issuing of the writ, and it is his own default if he does not do it: had the words of the act been, “ where “ the debt or thing in action is above ten years standing,” there would have been nothing unreasonable in it, for the time might have been limited as well to ten as to twelve years. That there is no difference between the words, -where the debt or thing in action hath been, or is txuelve years standing : when it is said the debt is above twelve years standing, the expressions impart that twelve years have expired; and so when it is said the debt has been, &c.

In this case thirteen years have expired, and we can, therefore, say the debt has been or is above twelve years standing. That if the construction of the word or, as if it were and, were admitted, still our objection would be the same, for then the effect of the clause would be this: The plaintiff shall not maintain his action unless he pleads and offers his bond in evidence