NICHOLS r. BEAK0. 5T0 �that the title to the land was conveyed by Fellowa to Worth- ington. �I have examined the cases oited by defendants' counsel, and do not find that they are in conflict with the principles before stated and that seem to be controlling here. One of them (Griswold v. Butler, 3 Conn. 227) holds, what would hardly be disputed, that where a person takes possession under a paroi agreement for a purchase, and paya for the land, or purchases it and takea a deed which is defective, the possession of the purchaser which ensues is prima fade under a claim of title in himself, and is therefore adverse. That is not this case ; beeanse Merriok neither took a deed from the true owner nor paid for the land. �Without further discussion of the questions involved, I am of the opinion that the title to the lands in suit should be adjudged to be in the plaintiff, and that he is entitled to recover possession. ���NiCHOLS and others v. Beaed, Collector. (Gireuit Court, D. Mastachusetts. Maf 21, 1831.) �1. Impoiits— WooL Web— Rby. St. } 2504, Sohbd. M, p. 477. �Certain imported merchandise, made of Indla rubber, wool, and cotton, and used for gores, or gussets, in the manufacture of congreas boots, was invoiced as wool gusaet, or wool terry, and entered as ■wool web. Seld, that such merchandise was " webbing * * * composed wholly, or in part, of India rubber, not otherwise provided for," within the terms of section 2504 of the Revised Statutes, (Sched. M, p. 477, 2d Ed.,) and were therefore onlj subject to a duty of 35 per cent. — [Ed. �Charles Levi Woodhury and J. P. Tucker, for plaintiffs. �Geo. P. Songer, U. S. Att'y, for defendant. �LowELL, C. J. The faota in this case are agreed. The plaintiffs imported into Boston certain merchandise in- voiced as wool gusset, or wool terry, and entered as wool ��� �
