568 FEDEBAIi KEPOBTER. �twenty-ninth d'ay of April, I8I3. On the part of the defend- ants proof was' made of a bond for a deed, dated January 26, 1867, from Fellows/by E.Worthington, his attorney, to Levi J. Merrick, by which Merriek ' agreed to payf 3,500 for the land, f 1,000 'dollars of wbich was to be represented by a note for that amouilt, payable September 1, 1857, -with 10
- per cent, interest,' aind' the balance was to be secured by
note: and mortga^e bearing T^per cent, interest.'and payable January 25,^.18e0,^ i", ',, . ' '„ '".' " �As a iurther basis of titleinth]© defend^rut pflt An evidence a w'arranty deed- bf the premises in question,» from Ellis Worthingtctn and ,wife to Levi J. 'Merrick, esecut'ed May 1, 1857, but not;recorded, nniil^^y |I8, i86e- This was fol- lowed by proof of a deed from Levi J. Merrick to the defendant LeyiC. Merrick, executed May 8, 1878, and a lease from the defendaot Merrick tb the defendant ^cbriialtz, exe- cuted April 30, 1879. Proof was also made of the. execu- tion of a lease of a portion of the premises, dated November 19, 1858, from Levi J. Merrick to one John Cappon, for the term offiye y^ars. Certain other documentary eyidence in support of the defendants' tilaim of title was introduced, con- sisting of a mortgage deed of'20 acres of said land, exeeuted by Isaac Cappon and wife to Levi J. Merrick, November 23, 1866 ; a contraet for a deedof the whole of the premises- in question, dated October 12, 1874, from Levi J. Merrick to CaSper Traxel and the defendant Schmaltz ; and a release of said premises by the Bank of Milwaukee, exeeuted August 11 , 1857, from the alleged lien of a judgment recovered July 1, 1857, by the bank, against Ellis Worthington. Proof was also made of possession of the premises by Levi J. Merrick, and those claiming undef 'him, as hereafter more fully stated. �The first question whicb ' arises is, what interest or title, if any, Afras vested in the plaintiff by the iiistrument of convey- ance from Fellows to him, elecuted October 10, 1868, in con- nection With the suppleinentkry instrument of date October 15, 1 86a ? It isieiiimed' by the plaintiff that this coriveyance is a valid deed, conveyirig the premises to the plaintiff as ��� �
