Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/391

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

884 FEDEBAIi BaPOBTBR. �Jones ». Miller. {Cîrmit Court, D. Nebraska. , 1880.) �1. BviDENOK— Record of Formes Suit — Idbntitt oï Controveest �Where the question in oontroversy relates to the identity of certain land, record evidence ia admissible to show that the same oontroversy bas been litigated between the defendant and the plaintlfl's grantor, and determined by the state court. �2. Same— Qrahtor and Gbantee — Adverse Possession. — The adverse �holding of a grantor who bas given a warranty deed, must be estab- lished by clear and undoubted testimony, showing a change ia the relations of the parties towards the land. �In Equity. �John D. Howe and Geo, W. Amhrose, for complaînant, �E. Wakeley, for defendant. �MoCbary, g. J. This is a bill to quiet title to a tract of land in the city of Omaha, known as part of block 172|- in the Omaha City Gompany's survey. This snrvey was made prior to the time when the title of the United States was «xtinguished. The government title, however, subsequently Tested in one John A. Horhach, who made several deeds, describing the land conveyed by reference to said plat. It appears that lots were bought and sold during a considerable period of time by reference thereto, and that the plat was published and well known in the community. The principal question in dispute here is as to whether the land now in oontroversy is identical with said block 172J. Both parties claim under Horbach as a common source of title, and eaeh holds a deed for a tract of land coming from him through several meane conveyances. On the sixteenth of Jan- uary, 1868, Horbach conveyed by warranty deed, to one Moffat, eight lots in said block 172^; in February, 1858, Moffat con- veyed the same by the same description to B. F. Allen; and in March, 1876, Allen conveyed to defendant, Miller. In 1872 Horbach conveyed the land now in controversy, by metea and bounds, without reference to the plat, to one Griffith, who in August, 1873, conveyed to plaintiff. �The case turns upon a question of faot, to-wit: whether ����