◆ SpookStack

-2~ Moreover, the courts have given unanimous recognition to the rule that a void act carmmot repeal a valid existing statute and that the previous law remains in full force and operation as if the repeal had never been attempted, Frost v. Corporation Com mission of Oklahoma et al, {1929} 278 U.S. 515, 526, 527; American Wood Products Co. v. City of Minneapolis et al, (C.C.A. 8th 1929} 35 F. (24) 657, 659; People v. Schraeberg, (Ill. 1932) 179 N. E. 29, 830: North Bend Stage Line, Inc. v. Department of Public Works et al, (Wash, 1952) 16 P. (2d) 206, 210; and sce ésmerican Digest, "Statutes", Key Nuxbers 63 and 169, It would seem, furthermore, that those cases would be in point in which it has been held that provisions suspending the operation of statutes of Limitation in favor of persons Leboring under disabilitics refer only to parties whose disabilitics existed at the time their clcim ceeriod and cannot be inveked by those whose disebilitics subsoqucntly arose. DeArnaud v. United States (1894) idl U. S. 483, 496; Gauserman v. Blunt (1893) 147 U. S. 647, 657; Harris v. McGovern (1876) 99 U. S. 161, 167, and see American Digest, "Limitation cf Actions", Key Number 76, At leest tro courts have held explicitly that a statute of limitations continues te min against a narty in spite of the existence of an unconstituticual law which anparcntly takes away his right to SuCe Bigeolet v, Rouers, (D.C. Ne. ¥. 1933) 5 Fe Sup. 346, 347; Narris ve Gray, (1573} 49 Ga. 585, In order that all Government attorncys intercsted in Ver Risk Insurance law may be kept in close touch with new devclopments, you are urgently requcsted to netify this office immediately upon the filing of any exev suits in your district or territory. Vory truly yours, WILL G. BEARDSLEE Director, Bureau of Wor Risk Litigation.