On Motion for Rehearing.
This motion has been given careful consideration, but our conclusion is that this court has properly disposed of the case, and that the motion should be overruled.
We concede the fact, as stated in the motion, and also stated in our former opinion, that at the time the Legislature passed the act of August, 1913, by which it attempted to restore to appellant, and all others similarly situated, the right to maintain an action in court which had already been barred by the statute of limitations, appellant possessed another remedy, and could have maintained a suit for the recovery of the land, unless in answer to such suit an offer had been made to pay the debt. But we do not concede that because of the existence of such other remedy the Legislature had the power to revive and restore an additional remedy which had been barred by limitation.
We fail to see the force of the argument, which concedes that if at the time referred to appellant had possessed no other remedy, then the Legislature would have had no power to restore to him a right which had become barred by limitation, but insists that the Legislature had such power, because at the time referred to appellant had another and different remedy which had not become barred. By what rule of .logic or reason it *495can be maintained, that the Legislature may exercise a power wbieli is prohibited by the Constitution, merely because the party in whose behalf it is exercised has another remedy, is more than we are able to understand.
The cases cited by counsel for appellant are not analogous, and do not sustain appellant’s contention. The reference to Cyc. contains one sentence which seems broad enough to support the contention urged. The entire' section reads as follows:
“Upon the question as to how far vested rights may be gained in the running of the statute for the time requisite to bar actions, and whether a bar thus once gained may be subsequently affected by the repeal of the statute or a renewal of time for bringing the action once barred, the authorities are in conflict. The weight of authority in the several states, it is believed, supports the view that the bar gained by the running of the statute is a vested right which cannot subsequently be taken away by the Legislature either by creating a new right, repealing the former statute, or withdrawing a specified past period from its operation. There are, however, contrary authorities in several jurisdictions, and the rule that the bar to a claim for debt cannot be a vested right is established in the United States Supreme Court by a series of decisions. These authorities would _ usually distinguish cases where the bar gained is merely against the remedy of the creditors, as in case of a debt from cases where the bar has vested an absolute title to real or personal property. There can be no right gained in the running of the statute till the prescribed period of limitations is completed, or according to some authorities till not only the remedy is barred, but the limitation has entirely extinguished the former right and vested a title. But where only one particular form of remedy is 'barred, while other equivalent forms remain, there can be no objection to a removal of a bam on the first. A distinction is sometimes attempted as to whether a statute as it originally stood conferred a right not existing at common law or limited one which did so exist before, the doctrine being that in the latter case a bar already complete under the statute may be removed by later act.” 8 Cyc. pp. 922, 923.
The sentence italicized is that relied on by counsel for appellant. But one case is cited by the author in support of that text, which is Power v. Telford, 60 Miss. 195. We have examined that case, and find that the Supreme Court of Mississippi held that while a party in possession of property could acquire a vested right in it by flow of time, he could never acquire a vested right in or against any particular remedy, and that, such being the case, it was competent for the Legislature to give to the owner of the property additional remedies, or to restore to him an old one which had been lost by a lapse of time.
If that court was correct in holding that there could be no vested right in or against a particular remedy, then it correctly reached the conclusion that the Legislature had the power to restore a remedy which was barred by limitation, even if the Constitution of that state is similar to ours, which is not made to appear by the report of the case. But, as shown by our former opinion, the doctrine in this state as announcéd by our Supreme Court is just the reverse .of that announced by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, and is to the effect that a party may acquire a vested right to plead a statute of limitation, and that after the lapse of the time necessary to perfect such a right the Legislature is prohibited by our Constitution from passing any law that would impair that right. According to Cyc. the weight of authority supports that view, although there are decisions in other jurisdictions, including the Supreme Court of the United States, which announce a contrary view.
Our conclusion is that the motion for rehearing should be overruled; and it is so ordered.
Motion overruled.