534 FEDERAL RBPOBTEB. �to look beyond the deoree of a court having jurisdietion of the sub- ject-matter, for the exercise of jurisdietion warrants the presumption in favor of a pnrchaser that the facts necessary to be proved to con- fer jurisdietion were proved. When L. G. Thompson purchased he acquired a good title, and he had title when he conveyed to the pres- ent defendants in 1863 ; but the proceedings for condamnation and sale, and the title of the purehasers, all became void on the downfall of the de facto government. I think the rule of law heretofore stated as to parties in an action for the recovery of land claiming from the same source of title does not apply. The defendants do not claim from the ancestors of the plaintiff, but such title as they once had was derived from the confederate government, and on the downfall of that government they became mere occupants of the land under color of title. As to the possession and color of title of the defendants I will make extended reference hereafter, when I corne to consider the issue on this subject. �There is still another matter which I wish to withdraw from your consideration. In 1865 this state was under the military control of the United States. One of the defendants being in possession at that time of the lands in controversy, and being apprehensive that he might be disturbed or disposseased by the military authority, weut to a per^ son who, before the war, had been the agent of some of the heirs of Yates & Mcintyre, and proposed to take a lease from him to secure possession against military interference. This person had no au- thority to act in the matter, as his power of attorney had become void by the death of the grantors. The lease which was executed was not intended by the parties as a honafide lease, but was for the purposes stated, and no effort was ever made to colleet the sums agreed upon in said lease. The lease was void, as the pretended lessor had no authority to make it, and it did not have the effect of establishing the relation of landlord and tenant between the defendant and the heirs at law of Yates & Mcintyre. You are, therefore, charged not to consider this matter in making up your verdict. �In an action like this a plaintiff can only recover upon the strenqth of his own title. For the purpose of showing title the plaintiffs intro- duced a deed from Ward, the sheriff of Gaston county, who, under an execution at law, had sold the lands and executed said deed to the purehasers, Yates & Mcintyre, dated September, 1835. The plain- tiffs introduced no other deeds showing a chain of title back to the state. For the purpose of showing title out of the state they intro- duced evidence tending to prove that the lands ^vere occupied as far ��� �
