BLACKWELL V. WALKBB. 423 �the slaves was secured to the wife, free from the marital rights of the hnsband and the claims of hia creditors. The pos- session thus acquired was often continued for many years, under circumstances calculated to mislead persons dealing with the party in possession, and the object of the statute was to make the apparent ownership arising from such pos- session, whatever the nature of the bailment or trust might be, actual and effectuai against the real owner, in favor of creditors and purchasers of one who had so remained in pos- session for a period of five years. �The section was adopted in Kantucky in 1796, and in the revision of the statutesof that Btate,in 1852, conditional sales were in ternis brought within its operation. It was adopted by the territories of Missouri and Arkansas, and by each of those States, and Illinois and Texas. As originally adopted by Kenfucky, and the territories of Missouri and Arkansas, and by the state of Missouri in her first code of laws, it read as followB, including the clause in brackets, which are in- serted for the purpose of calling attention to subsequent alter- ations : "Where any goods or ehattels shall be pretended to have been loaned to any person, with who m or those claiming under him possession shall bave remained for the space of five yearSjWithout demand made and pursued by our process of law on the part of the pretended lender ; or limitation shall be pretended to bave been naade of any use of property by way of condition, reservation, or remainder, [or otherwise in goods or ehattels, the possession whereof shall have so re- mained in another, as aforesaid,] the same shall be taken, as to ail creditors and purchasers of the persons so remainhig in possession, to be void, and that the absolute property is with the possession, unless siLch loan, reservation, or limitation of the use of property were dealared by will or deed in writing, proved or acknowledged, and recorded as required by this chapter." �In the Eevised Statutes of this state the clause in brackets is omitted, except the words "in another." Whatever the design of this omission may have been — if, indeed, it was designed, ancl not a c'erical misprlGion — it is still clear that the ����
