Opinion of the Court. The phraseology of the act of 1872, and of the 1008th section of the Revised Statutes is so nearly identical with that of the 22d section of the act of 1789, in reference to the point under consideration, that we must presume they were intended to have the same construction, and the act of 1789 contains no language which requires that it should have a different construction from that which had long been established in reference to all the statutes of limitation then known, whether in the mother country or in this. On the contrary, as we have seen, the terms of the act of 1789 fairly call for the same construction which had for centuries prevailed in reference to those statutes. It is a received canon of construction, acquiesced in by this court, "That where English statutes, such, for instance, as the Statute of Frauds and the Statute of Limitations, have been adopted into our own legislation, the known and settled construction of those statutes by courts of law has been considered as silently incorporated into the acts, or has been received with all the weight of authority." Pennock v. Dialogue, 2 Pet. 1, 18; Smith's Commentaries on Stat. and Const. Law, § 634; Sedgwick on Constructtion of Stat. and Const. Law, 363. And even where inadvertent changes have been made by incorporating different statutes together, it has been held not to change their original construction. Thus, in New Jersey, where several English statutes had been consolidated, a proviso in one of them, broad enough in its terms to affect the whole consolidated law, was held to affect only those sections with which it had been originally connected. Chief Justice Green said: "Where two or more statutes, whose construction has been long settled, are consolidated into one, without any change of phraseology, the same construction ought to be put upon the consolidated act as was given to the original statutes. A different construction ought not to be adopted if thereby the policy of the act is subverted or its material provisions defeated." Murphy, 3 Zab. 180. In re Opinion of the Court. So, upon a revision of statutes, a different interpretation is not to be given to them without some substantial change of phraseology-some change other than what may have been necessary to abbreviate the form of the law. Sedgwick on Const. Stat. 365. As said by the New York Court for the Correction of Errors, in Taylor v. Delancey, 2 Caines' Cas. 143, 150: "Where the law antecedently to the revision was settled, either by clear expressions in the statutes, or adjudications on them, the mere change of phraseology shall not be deemed or construed a change of the law, unless such phraseology evidently purports an intention in the legislature to work a change." And see Yates' Case, 4 Johns. 317; Theriat v. Hart, 2 Hill, 380; Parmelee v. Thompson, 7 Hill, 77; Goodell v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 693; Cros well v. Crane, 7 Barb. 191. "The construction will not be changed by such alterations as are merely designed to render the provisions more precise." Mooers v. Bunker, 29 N. H. 421. So the Supreme Court of Alabama has held that the legis lature of that State in adopting the Code, must be presumed to have known the judicial construction which had been placed on the former statutes; and, therefore, the re-enactment in the Code of provisions substantially the same as those contained in a former statute is a legislative adoption of their known judicial construction. Duramus v. Harrison, 26 Ala. 326. "A change of phraseology in a revision will not be regarded as altering the law where it had been well settled by plain language in the statutes, or by judicial construction thereof, unless it is clear that such was the intent." Sedgwick on Construction, 2d ed. 229, note.* Of course, a change of phraseology which necessitates a change of construction will be deemed as intended to make a change in the law. Young v. Dake, 1 Seld. 463. In view of these authorities and of the principles involved in *Referring to Hughes v. Farrar, 45 Me. 72; Burnham v. Stevens, 33 N. H. 247; Overfield v. Sutton, 1 Metc. (Ky.) 621; McNamara v Minnesota Central Railway Company, 12 Minn. 388; Conger v. Barker, 11 Ohio St. 1. Opinion of the Court. them, and from a careful consideration of the language of the law itself, we are satisfied that it was not the intention of Congress, either in the 22d section of the act of 1789, or in the 2d section of the act of 1872, or in the 1008th section of the Revised Statutes, to change the rule which had always, from the time of Henry Seventh, been applied to statutes of limitation, namely, the rule that no disability will postpone the operation of the statute unless it exists when the cause of action accrues; and that when the statute begins to run no subsequent disability will interrupt it. This conclusion disposes of the case. As the appellant was free from any disability for several months after the entry of the decree appealed from, the statute commenced to run at that time, and, therefore, the time for taking the appeal expired several years before it was actually taken. The appeal is therefore dismissed.· WAPLES v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. Argued January 2d, 1884.-Decided March 3d, 1884. Confiscation-Deed-Judicial Sale. In a sale under the Confiscation Act, of July 17th, 1862, 12 Stat. 589, the pur. chaser is presumed to know that if the offender had no estate in the premises at the time of seizure, nothing passed to the United States by decree or to him by purchase, and general language of description in his deed will not operate as a warranty or affect this presumption; and this rule prevails as to the United States, although a different rule may prevail in the State where the property is situated as to judicial sales under State laws. Mr. C. W. Hornor and Mr. Mason Day for appellant. Mr. Solicitor-General for appellee submitted the case on his brief. MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court. In March, 1865, the plaintiff purchased for the sum of $7,400 Opinion of the Court. certain real property in New Orleans at a sale upon a decree rendered by the District Court of the United States in proceedings for its confiscation under the act of July 17th, 1862, and subsequently obtained a deed of the property from the marshal. The proceedings were instituted in the usual form by a libel of information filed on the 7th of August, 1862, by the district attorney of the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of the United States, against ten lots of ground alleged to be the property of Charles M. Conrad. The libel sets forth that the marshal of the district, under authority from the district attorney, given pursuant to instructions of the AttorneyGeneral, had seized the lots of ground, which are fully described, as forfeited to the United States; that they were owned by Conrad then, and on the 17th of July, 1862, and previously; that after that date he had acted as an officer of the army or navy of the rebels in arms against the government of the United States, or as a member of Congress, or as a judge of a court, or as a cabinet officer, or as a foreign minister, or as a commissioner, or as a consul of the so-called Confederate States. Indeed, many other official positions he is charged in the alternative with holding, the district attorney evidently regarding him as a person of so much consequence that he must have been called to some official position by the Confederate government, in which he gave aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, and therefore his right, title, and estate in the property was forfeited, and ought to be condemned. Publication of monition followed, and no one appearing to answer, judgment by default was entered, declaring that the lots of land, the property of Conrad, were condemned as forfeited to the United States, and a decree for their sale was entered. In the writ issued to the marshal and in his deed of sale, the lots are described as the property of Conrad. Under the act of Congress no other interest than that of Conrad was forfeited, and no other interest was sold. It was for his alleged offences that the libel was filed and the forfeiture sought. It was undoubtedly in the power of Congress to provide for the confiscation of the entire property as being within the enemy's country, without restricting it to the estate of the defendant, but Congress Opinion of the Court. did not see fit to so enact; and as we said in speaking of the proceedings in this case: "The court cannot enlarge the operations of the stringent provisions of the statute. The plaintiff had notice of the character and legal effect of the decree of condemnation when he purchased, and is therefore presumed to have known that if the alleged offender possessed no estate in the premises at the time of their seizure, nothing passed to the United States by the decree or to him by his purchase." Burbank v. Conrad, 96 U. S. 291. This would be true with reference to any layman who might have been the purchaser, but with special force may it be applied to the plaintiff, who as the district attorney directed the seizure and conducted the proceedings to the decree. It turned out in other litigation that at the time of the seizure Conrad possessed no estate in the premises. He had transferred the property by a public act of sale before a notary on the 31st of May, 1862, before the confiscation statute was passed, which applied only to the property of persons thereafter guilty of acts of disloyalty and treason. In express terms it withheld from its application the property of persons who before its passage may have offended in those respects. Conrad's power of disposition when he made his sale to his sons was not impaired by anything he may previously have done. This was expressly adjudged by this court in the case of Conrad, the son, against the plaintiff. 96 U. S. 279. But because of the general language used in the description of the property in the libel of information and in the deed of the marshal, it is contended that something more than the estate of the offender Conrad was warranted by the United States to the purchaser, and the warranty having failed, that he is entitled to a return of the purchase money; but this position is without even plausible foundation. As already stated, the plaintiff was presumed to know the law on the subject, and that by his purchase under the decree he could only acquire such an estate as the alleged offender possessed, to hold during the offender's life; and that if the offender had no estate none was forfeited to the United States, or sold under the decree of the court. So no false assurance could have been made to the purchaser which |