Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/702

694 ���FEDERAL REPORTER. ���order to prevent such statute from operating as a fraud upon said bank, and your orator, as receiver thereof." �I am of the opinion that there is a sufificient averment in the bill of a fraudaient concealment of the cause of action, and the question, therefore, is whether, notwithstanding such concealment, the defendants can successfnlly plead the stat- ute of limitations. �The statute of Missouri concerning administration requires the presentation of ail claims against an estate witliin two jears from the time of the publication of a notice of the ad- ministration to creditors, and it declares that "ail demands not thus exhibited witliin two years shall be forever barred." There is a saving clause in favor of infants, persons of un- sound mind, persons imprisoned, and married women, but nothing is said as to cases of concealed fraud. 2 Waguer's St. 86, 102. �The general statute on the subject of the limitation of actions provides that, in an action for relief on the ground of fraud, the cause of action shall be deemed not to have acorued until the discovery of the fraud by the aggrieved party. 1 Wag. 747. �It is earnestly contended, on behalf of the respondents, that, according to the construction placed by the supreme court of Missouri upon these statutes, the action is barred, notwith- standing the discovery of the fraud within two years. Upon this subject counsel insist : �First. That the statute regulating the prosecution and col- lection of claims against an estate absolutely bars ail demands not exhibited within two years, and that, since no exception is made by the statute itself in favor of demands growing out of concealed fraud, the court is not at liberty to engraft this exception upon the statute. �Second. That the general statute of limitations, which does contain a provision declaring that in actions on the ground of fraud the cause of action shall be deemed not to have accrued until discovery by the aggrieved party, does not apply to this case. �Upon the first proposition we are referred to McKenzie v. ��� �