M'iNTYEE V. THOMPSON. ' 637 �1861. vjntii the first of January, 1870, se that Magruder's adverse pos- session roust have been a continuous one from January 1, 1870, to perfect his title, as this action was commenced in September, 1877. �As both plaintiffs and defendants claim under color of title and the stittute of limitations, I will say a few words as to the nature and policy of such statutes. "They are now regarded favorably in all courts of justice. They are statutes of repose. Usually they are founded in a wise and salutary policy, and promote the ends of jus- tice." They are dictated mainly by two considerations, — one, that it is public policy to discourage stale claims ; and the other, that it is not to be presumed that a person having a right would delay in asscrting it for a long period in f ull view of another's wrongful inter- ference with it. A title acquired by operation of the statute of lim- itations is as much deserving of the favorable consideration of a court of justice as any other kind of title. �In charging a jury I do not generally recapitulate the testimony offered by the parties, but leave such matters to the recolleotion of the jury, refreshed and enlightened by the argument of counsel. As to the nature of Magruder's possession I must state some of the tes- timony in order to show the application of certain principles of law. In the fall of 1865, Magruder quit the actual possession of the lands and rented them to Wesley Mincy for the year 1866. He did not as tenant cultivate the lands, but went off to superintend a mill, leaving his family in possession. Moses Mincy, by permission of his son Wesley, entered on the lands and cultivated a crop, and after that year he was in the sole possession of the lands for several years. There is some conflict in the testimony as to whether Moses Mincy paid rent to the agent of Magruder for the years 1866, 1867, 1868. In 1869 he went to an agent of Magruder and offered to pay rent. The agent declined to receive the rent, saying he was no longer Ma- gruder's agent. Moses Mincy, then acting under some advice which he had received, moved off of the lands and moved back the same day, and remained in possession until the fall of 1872, and paid rent to a person professing to act as agent for the heirs of Yates & Meintyre. �If you are satisfied from the evidence that Moses Mincy paid rent to the agent of Magruder for the years 1866, 1867, and 1868, this would establish the relation of landlord and tenant. He entered under the license of his son Wesley, who was a tenant of Magruder, and although there was no contract between Moses Mincy and Magruder, yet if he paid rent during his possession to the duly-authorized agent ��� �
