Limitation for profits claims runs from receipt date, and pending sale-set-aside proceedings do not suspend time absent statutory exception.

Article 109 of the Limitation Act governed the claim for profits wrongfully received, and limitation ran from the date each profit was received. The pendency of proceedings to set aside the sale did not create any general equitable exception or suspend time once it had begun to run, because the statute contained no saving provision applicable to the case. On that basis, the claim for profits received more than three years before suit was held barred by limitation, while the cross-objection succeeded only to the extent of correcting an item and reducing liability.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs' claim for profits received more than three years before the suit was barred by limitation under Article 109 of the Limitation Act, and whether the pendency of proceedings to set aside the sale deferred the starting point of limitation or suspended its operation.

Analysis: Article 109 governed suits for profits wrongfully received and fixed limitation from the date when the profits were received. The pendency of the judgment-debtor's application to set aside the sale did not create any general equitable exception to the statute. The Limitation Act contained no saving provision applicable to the plaintiffs' case, and the Court declined to extend the exceptional principle drawn from earlier authorities beyond their special facts. Time, once begun to run, could not be suspended by a subsequent inability to sue unless the statute itself so provided. The claim for profits received more than three years before institution of the suit was therefore outside limitation.

Conclusion: The plaintiffs' appeal failed, and the disallowed items remained barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The decree below was affirmed in substance as to the dismissed claim, while the defendant's cross-objection succeeded to the extent of correcting the mistaken item and reducing liability.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express statutory exception, the Limitation Act must be applied according to its terms, and no general equitable principle can be used to suspend or extend limitation after time has begun to run.

---