There are many authorities, however, to show that if, by the interposition of courts, the necessity of the case, or the provisions of a statute, a person cannot be sued for a limited time, the running of the statute is suspended during that period. In other words, if the law interposes to prevent suit, it will see to it that he who has a right of action shall not be prejudiced thereby ; Tar ver v. Cowart, 5 Ga. 66 ; Montgomery v. Hernandez, 12 Wheat. (U. SO 129, 6 L. Ed. 575. Thus, an injunction suspends the stat ute; Hutsonpiller's Adm'r v. Stover's Adm'r, 12 Gratt. (Va.) 579; Sands v. Campbell, 31 N. Y. 345 ; but it is held that an injunction against the commencement of an action, does not prevent the running of the statute of limitations unless it so provides ; Hunter v. Its. Co., 73 Ohio St. up, 76 N. E. 563, 3 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1187, 112 Am. St. Rep. 699, 4 Ann. Cas. 146; and so where the injunction is induced by the debtor; Lagerman v. Cas serly, 107 Minn. 491, 120 N. W. 1086, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 673, 131 Am. St. Rep. 506; or where he was a party ; Georgia R. & Bank ing Co. v. Wright, 124 Ga. 596, 53 S. E. 251; Wilkinson v. ins. Co., 72 N. Y. 499, 28 Am. Rep. 166.
The presentation of a claim against the United States to the treasury department for examination and allowance suspends the statute; Utz v. U. S., 75 Fed. 648. And so does an assignment of an imsolvent's effects, as between the estate and the creditors; Wil lard v. Clarke, 7 Mete. (Mass.) 435; Succes sion of Flower, 12 La. Ann. 216; though not, as has just been said, as between the debtor and his creditor;' Collester v. Hailey, 6 Gray (Mass.) 517. But when the statute does not in terms exclude and Limit a particular case, the court will not extend it, although the case comes within the reason of the statute; Howell v. Hair, 15 Ala. 194 ; Favorite v. Booher's Adm'r, 17 Ohio St. 548; Warfield v. Fox, 53 Pa. 382.
By the special provisions of the statute, infants, married women, persons non cora pos mentis, those imprisoned, and those be pond seas, out of the state, out of the realm, or out of the country, are regarded as af fected by the incapacity to sue, or, in other words, as being under disability, and have, therefore, the right of action secured to them until the expiration of the time limited, after the removal of the disability. The statute of limitations cannot be pleaded in bar to an action by a wife against a husband to re cover present and future maintenance; Carr v. Carr, 6 Ind. App. 377, 33 N. E. 805. But these personal exceptions have been strictly construed, and the party alleging the dis ability has been very uniformly held to bring himself exactly within the express words of the statute to entitle himself to the benefit of the exception. To bring himself within
the spirit or supposed reason of the excep tion is not enough ; Sacia v. De Graaf, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 356; Beardsley v. Southmayd, 15 N. J. L. 171; 17 Ves. Ch. 87. And this privilege is accorded although the person la boring under the statute disability might in fact bring suit. Thus, an infant may sue before he arrives at his majority, but he is not obliged to, and his right is saved if he does not,; 2 Saund. 117. The time during which a negro was held as a slave should not be counted, in determining whether an action by him is barred by the statute; Ber ry v. Berry's Adm'r (Ky.) 22 S. W. 654. The disability must, however, be continuous and identical. One disability cannot be super added to another so as to prolong the time; East Tennessee Iron & Coal Co. v. Wiggin, 37 U. S. App. 129, 68 Fed. 446, 15 C. C. A. 510; and if the statute once begins to run, whether before a disability exists or after it has been removed, no intervention of an other and subsequent disability can stop it; Workman v. Guthrie, 29 Pa. 495, 72 Am. Dec. 654 ; Fritz v. Joiner, 54 111. 101; Turnipseed v. Freeman, 2 McCord (S. C.) 269; Hardy v. Riddle, 21 Neb. 670, 39 N. W. 841; Alvis v. Oglesby, 87 Tenn,.. 172, 10 S, W. 313 ; Royse v. Turnbaugh, 117 Ind. 539, 20 S. W. 485; Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 647, 13 Sup. Ct. 466, 37 L. Ed. 316. • Where the plaintiff sustains injuries to, his head, resulting in insanity almost imme diately thereafter, the two events are simul taneous and the statute begins to run the next day; Nebola v. Iron Co., 102 Minn. 89, 112 N. W. 880, 12 Ann. Cas. 56.
When, however, there are two or more co existing disabilities at the time the right of action accrues, suit need not be brought tin all are removed; Plowd. 375 ; Keeton's Heirs v. Keeton's Adm'r, 20 Mo. 530 ; Demarest v. Wynkoop, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. L) 129, 8 Am. Dec. 467.
The time during which a debtor is absent residing out of the state of his own free will and accord, is to be deducted in estimating the time in which an action must be brought against him; Hoffman v. Pope's Estate, 74 Mich. 235, 41 N. W. 907; Ament v. Lowen thall, 52 Kan. 706, 35 Pac. 804 ; notwithstand ing that he continues to have a usual place of residence in the state where service of the summons could be made on him; Bauserman v. Blunt, 147 U. S. 647, 13 Sup. Ct. 466, 37 L. Ed. 316; a foreign corporation is a per son out of the state; Larson v. Aultman & Taylor Co., 86 Wis. 285, 56 N. W. 915, 39 Am. St. Rep. 893. See BEYOND SEAS.