EVIDENCE, II. k, 3. 115 Fed. 473-Sulphur Mines Co. v. Thomp- 675. If the validity of a deed depends Cited in Ransom v. Williams, 2 Wall. 319, 17 450-Ft. Smith v. Dodson, 51 Ark. 452, 4 L. Allen v. Hughes, 106 Ga. 786, 32 S. E. 927 682. Where a party admits, in an answer tier, 117 I. 289, 7 N. E. 642-Bell v. Skilli- setting up a special defense and praying for corn, 6 N. M. 408, 28 Pac. 768-Bloom v. Burdick, 1 Hill, 142, 37 Am. Dec. 299. 676. Where deeds are executed by an attorney under a power, the burden of proof to show that they are invalid for any reason not apparent on their face rests upon the party attacking the deed. Clements v. Machebœuf, 92 U. S. 418, 23: 504 677. Delivery of a deed is presumed from concurrent acts of parties recognizing a transfer of title. Gould v. Day, 94 U. S. 405, 24: 232 Cited in Robb v. Day, 33 C. C. A. 93, 62 U. S. App. 173, 90 Fed. 347-Marvin v. Stimp son. 23 Colo. 181, 46 Pac. 673- -Bunnell v. Bunnell, 111 Ky. 578, 64 S. W. 420-Campbell v. Kuhn, 45 Mich. 516, 40 Am. Rep. 479, 8 N. E. 523. the cancelation of a contract and a recon- to have been made on its date. But this pre- 15:525 Cited in Ex parte Mitchell, 39 Ala. 447Bailey v. Selden, 124 Ala. 408, 26 So. 909. 684. Where a grantor enters for breach of conditions and stipulations, the burden is 678. The possession of a deed is prima upon him to show that his entry is justifacie evidence of its delivery. Rutland Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Davis, 6 Pet. 124, Sicard v. Cited in Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 274, fiable. Assignment for creditors. 19:955 only the property in the schedule annexed, 685. Where a deed of assignment conveys but it does not purport to contain all the 679. Where a grantee is in possession of property of the parties, the onus probandi, a deed which, upon the face of it, is regular-in an action by the United States claiming ly executed and which has been recorded, priority, is on the United States to show the presumption is that it was duly delivit embraced all the property of the debtor. ered. Games v. Stiles ex dem. United States v. Howland, 4 Wheat. 108, Pet. 322, Mortgage. Dunn, 14 10: 476 Hanrick v. Neely, 10 Wall. 364, 19: 947 Carver v. Jackson ex dem. Astor, 4 Pet. 1, 7: 761 4:526 Evidence to Overcome Presumption Against Defeasibility of Conveyance Absolute on its Face, see infra, 2395-2397. See also 7. supra, 659, 673; Mortgage, Cited in Kelly v. Jackson, 6 Pet. 632, 8 L. ed. 527-Hanrick v. Neely, 10 Wall. 366, 19 L. ed. 948-Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 274. 40 L. ed. 967, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 754William Firth Co. v. South Carolina Loan & T. Co. 122 Fed. 573-Horn v. Gartman. 1 Fla. 100-Squires v. Summers, 85 Ind. 254-State ex rel. Ross v. Robinson. 1 Kan. 200-Adams v. Frye, 3 Met. 109-Rogers v. Carey, 47 Mo. 235. 4 Am. Rep. 322-Roosevelt Carow, 6 Barb. 195-Flint v. Phipps, 16 Or. 687. The execution of the release of a V. 686. A chattel mortgage is presumed to have been executed upon the day of its date until the contrary is shown. Fowler v. Merrill, 11 How. 375, 13:736 mortgage must be proved by the one seeking to avail himself of the release, when the execution has been put in issue by the pleadings. Dick v. Balch, 8 Pet. 30, 8: 856 688. An assignment of a mortgage of real estate, so acknowledged as to be entitled to record, is prima facie evidence of its execution, and throws the burden of proof on the party denying it. Gay v. Parpart, 106 U. S. 679, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456, 27: 256 Cited in Schutz v. Jordan, 32 Fed. 60. 630. Acquiescence, by a daughter under the disability of infancy followed by coverture, for a long space of time, in a partition, creates no presumption against her as to the construction of a will. Den ex dem. Weatherhead v. Baskerville, 11 How. 329, 13: 717 Cited in Berry v. Seawall, 13 C. C. A. 116, 31 U. S. App. 30, 65 Fed. 757-Marr V. Gilliam, 1 Coldw. 502-Royston v. Wear, 3 Head, 11. 691. No presumption of the revocation of a will by the testator, or under his direction, arises in the case of a will received by the register of wills through the mail, with a local postmark, more than a year after the death of the testator and more than twenty-two years after its execution, and the will, when received, is mutilated, torn, and burned around the edges, with no seal upon it, while there is no evidence of its whereabouts from the time of its exe cution until that time, and nothing to show by whom it was mailed, but there is evidence that no such paper was found among his papers in his house after his death. Throckmorton v. Holt, 180 U. S. 552, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 474, 45: 663 Cited in Stevens v. Stevens, 72 N. H. 362, 56 Atl. 916-Re Hopkins, 73 App. Div. 565, 77 N. Y. Supp. 178. 4. Ownership or Possession. Of Corporate Stock, see supra, 213, 213a. Rebuttal of Presumption Arising from Bill of Lading, see infra, 1279. In Ejectment Suit, see Ejectment, 10-17. See also supra, 631, 632; Husband and Wife, 321. show everything necessary to maintain it. Ransom v. Williams, 2 Wall. 313, 17: 803 Williams v. Peyton, 4 Wheat. 77, 4:518 693. In ejectment, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that he has the legal title to, and the right of possession, of the lands in controversy. Maxwell Land Grant Co. v. Dawson, 151 U. S. 586, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 458, 38: 279 Cited in Corinne Mill. Canal & Stock Co. v. Johnson, 156 U. S. 576, 39 L. ed. 538, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 409-Webb v. Phillips, 26 C. C. A. 277, 54 U. S. App. 54, 80 Fed. 939Reusens v. Lawson, 91 Va. 256, 21 S. E. 347 -Harman v. Stearns, 95 Va. 71, 27 S. E. 601. 694. Where plaintiff has shown prima facie a good title to recover, and the defendant sets up a title in third persons, with whom he has no privity, it is incumbent upon him to establish the existence of such an outstanding title; and if he leaves it in doubt, the plaintiff has a right to stand upon his prima facie good title; and he is not bound to furnish any evidence to assist the defense. Greenleaf v. Birth, 6 Pet. 302, 8: 406 Cited in Henderson v. Wanamaker, 25 C. C. A. 185, 49 U. S. App. 174, 79 Fed. 739-McDonald v. Schneider, 27 Mo. 411-Bell V. 28 Skillicorn, 6 N. M. 406, Pac. 768-Martin v. Parker, 26 Tex. 261-Stockton v. Morris, 39 W. Va. 446, 19 S. E. 531-Parkersburg Industrial Co. v. Schultz, 43 W. Va. 476, 27 S. E. 255. 695. In an action for obstructing a wharf, possession of the defendant under color and with claim of title is sufficient to put the plaintiff upon proof of a better title. Linthicum v. Ray, 9 Wall. 241, 19: 657 696. The presumption is that buildings belong to the owner of the land on which they stand, as a part of the realty. Kinkead v. United States, 150 U. S. 483, 14 Sup. Ct. 37: 1152 Rep. 172, 697. In the absence of proof of its purchase with partnership funds for partnership purposes, real property standing in the names of several persons is deemed to be held by them as joint tenants or as tenants in common; and none of the several owners possesses authority to sell or bind the interest of his co-owners. Thompson v. Bowman, 6 Wall. 316, 18:736 Cited in Holton v. Guinn, 76 Fed. 100-Cline v. James, 48 C. C. A. 759, 109 Fed. 963Rovelsky v. Brown, 92 Ala. 527, 25 Am. St. Rep. 83, 9 So. 182-Lipscomb v. Watrous, 3 App. D. C. 5-Lamport v. Miller, 153 Ill. 255, 27 L.R.A. 463, 38 N. E. 1078-Metzger v. Huntington, 139 Ind. 513, 37 N. E. 1084-Beers v. Sharpe, 44 Or. 393, 75 Pac. 717. 698. In the absence of opposing circumstances the presumption is that a testator owning lands devised at the date of the will continued such owner up to the time of his death. Fletcher v. Fuller, 120 U. S. 534, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 667, 30: 759 699. Every reasonable intendment should 692. The plaintiff who asserts a title must be made to support the titles of bona fide EVIDENCE, II. k, 4. purchasers of real property. Van Ness v.able consideration. Hozey v. Buchanan, 16 Bank of United States, 13 Pet. 17, 10: 38 700. All favorable presumptions will be made against the forfeiture of a grant. Moral y Gonzales v. Ross (Gonzales v. Ross) 120 U. S. 605, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 705, 30: 801 701. [The word "purchase" implies purchase in fee. Hurst v. Dippo (Pa. Sup. Ct.) 1 Dall. 20, 1: 19] 702. Where the original grantee in a Spanish grant indorsed upon the grant that he had conveyed it to a woman, whom he afterwards married, and referred to another instrument of conveyance to her, and she conveyed the land to another, and he to a third, and all the convevances referred to this same conveyance, referred to by the indorsement on the original grant, it will be presumed, the conveyance being lost, that it conferred a greater estate on the grantee than she would have taken as the widow of the grantor; and the confirmation by the 703. The consignee named in a bill of lad- Bermuda (Haigh v. United States) 3 Wall. 553, 18 L. ed. 206-The Vaughan (The Telegraph v. Gordon) 14 Wall. 266, 20 L. ed. 808-The Carlos F. Roses, 177 U. S. 683, 44 L. ed. 940, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 803-Blum v. The Caddo, 1 Woods, 65, Fed. Cas. No. 1,573 -The Carlotta, 9 Ben. 15, Fed. Cas. No. 2.113-The Hannah M. Johnson, Blatchf. V. Prize Cas. 38, Fed. Cas. No. 6,030-The V. 704-5. A bill of sale of a vessel, connected with possession, is prima facie evidence of right but to constitute & fuil title the transfer should be bona fide and for a valu Pet. 215, Cited in Moynihan v. Drobaz, 124 Cal. 213, 71 Interests of husband and wife. 706. Since the passage of the married 33: 136 The In band is no proof that the title to his wife's 38:218 24: 179 708. In a contest between a married woman and her husband's creditors as to property purchased by her during coverture, the burden of proof is on her to show that it was paid for out of her separate property. Seitz v. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580, Cited in Caller v. McNabb, Fed. Cas. No. 2,322-Simms v. Morse, 4 Hughes, 582, 2 Fed. 328-Bates v. McConnell, 31 Fed. 590Backer v. Meyer, 43 Fed. 704-Kelley V. Connell, 110 Ala. 546, 18 So. 9-Wimberly v. Montgomery Fertilizer Co. 132 Ala. 115, 31 So. 524-Hershy v. Latham, 46 Ark. 550 -Ritch v. Hyatt, 3 MacArth. 551-Hewett v. Burritt, 3 App. D. C. 234-Smith v. Cook. 10 App. D. C. 495-Dexter v. Gordon, 11 App. D. C. 62-Turner v. Gottwals, 15 App. D. C. 46-Kahn v. Weinlander, 39 Fla. 217, 22 So. 653-Gorman v. Wood, 73 Ga. 377Jones v. Brandt, 59 Iowa, 339, 10 N. W. 854 -Hamill v. Augustine, 81 lowa, 303, 46 N. W. 1113-Robinson v. Clark, 76 Me. 494Trefethen v. Lynam, 90 Me. 384, 38 L.R.A. 194, 60 Am. St. Rep. 271, 38 Atl. 335Hinkle v. Wilson, 53 Md. 292-Erdman v. Rosenthal, 60 Md. 316-Bayne v. State, 62 Md. 103-Levi v. Rothschild, 69 Md. 349, 14 Atl. 535-Nicholson v. Condon, 71 Md. 624, 18 Atl. 812-Manning v. Carruthers, 83 ма. 6, 34 Atl. 254-Stockslager Mechanics' Loan & Sav. Inst. 87 Md. 234, 39 Atl. 742-Beall v. Frank, 93 Md. 334. 48 Atl. 1051-Minneapolis Stock-Yards & Pkg. Co. v. Halonen. 56 Minn. 471, 57 N. W. 1135-Terry v. Torry. 78 Mo. 625-White v. Clasby, 101 Mo. 167, 14 S. W. 180-Patton v. Bragg, 113 Mo. 601, 35 Am. Rep. 730, 20 S. W. 1059-Garrett v. Wagner, St. 125 Mo. 461, 28 S. W. 762-Hoffman v. Nolte, 127 Mo. 134. 29 S. W. 1006-Lins v. Lenhardt, 127 Mo. 289, 29 S. W. 1025-First Nat. Bank v. Simpson, 152 Mo. 656, 54 S. W. 506-Halstead v. Mustion, 166 Mo. 495, 66 S. W. 258-Bucks v. Moore, 36 Mo. App. 537-Ryan v. Bradbury, 89 Mo. App. 669 V. Bartlett v. Smith, 1 Neb. (Unof.) 337, 95 N. W. 661-First Nat. Bank v. Bartlett, 8 Neb. 329, 1 N. W. 27-Koch v. Rhodes, 10 Neb. 447, 6 N. W. 767-Thompson v. Loenig. 13 Neb. 388, 14 N. W. 168-First Nat. Bank v. McClellan, 9 N. M. 643, 58 Pac. 347Universal Bag Co. v. Fensley, 18 Misc. 411, 42 N. Y. Supp. 776-Mendenhall v. Elwert, 36 Or. 384, 59 Pac. 805-Ahl's Appeal, 129 Pa. 36. 18 Atl. 471-Perry v. Ruby, 81 Va. 326-Yates v. Law, 86 Va. 120, 9 S. E. 508 -Kinnier v. Woodson, 94 Va. 713, 27 S. E. 457-Herzog v. Weiler, 24 W. Va. 203-Webb v. Ingham, 29 W. Va. 395, 1 S. E. 816Brooks v. Applegate, 37 W. Va. 373, 16 S. E. 585 Root-Tea-Na-Herb Co. v. Rightmire, 48 W. Va. 228, 36 S. E. 359. 709. Where a wife in Louisiana mortgaged her property to raise money, which was lent to her in good faith upon her assurance that it was for her sole use and benefit, it is not necessary for the lender to prove that it actually enured to her separate use, in order to prevent her from obtaining an injunction against the enforcement of his rights as mortgagee. Bein v. Heath, 6 How 228. 12: 416 Distinguished in Bisland v. Provosty, 14 La. Ann. 170. Cited in Henry v. Gauthreaux, 32 La. Ann. 1113-Hollis v. Francois, 5 Tex. 204, 51 Am. Dec. 760-Allen v. Urquhart, 19 Tex. 484. 710. In Louisiana, under the act of 1855 (Rev. Code. 1870, arts. 126-128), modifying the Spanish rule as embodied in La. Civ. Code, art. 2412 (Civ. Code 1870, art. 2398), when a married woman, with authorization of her husband and the sanction and certificate of the judge, borrows money, the creditor is not bound to show that the money was used for her separate benefit and advantage; but the debt may be enforced against her and her separate property mortgaged to secure it, unless she shows that, with the knowledge or connivance of the lender, the money was borrowed and used, not for her separate benefit, but for that of her husband; the effect of the act merely being to establish a new rule of evidence. Fortier v. New Orleans Nat. Bank, 112 U. S. 439, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234, 28: 764 Cited in Marchand v. Griffon, 140 U. S. 525, 35 L. ed. 531, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 834. - Editorial note. [Burden of proof of husband's debt to wife on account of property received from her. 56 L.R.A. 817.] Presumed deed or grant. Spanish, French, or Mexican Grants, 944, 2344-2346, 2349; Trusts, 65, L. ed. 155, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 80-United States v. Chavez, 175 U. S. 521, 44 L. ed. 259, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 159-United States v. Pendell, 185 U. S. 200, 46 L. ed. 871, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 624-Williams V Turner, 7 Ga. 353-Newell v. Hill, 2 Met. 185-Caul v. Spring, 2 Watts, 396-Hickman v. Gaither, 2 Yerg. 204-Cornett v. Rhudy, 80 Va. 714. 712. If the circumstances of the case are very cogent and require it, a grant may be presumed, within a period short of the statute of limitations. Ricard v. Williams, 7 Wheat. 59, 5: 398 Cited in State v. Dickinson, 129 Mich. 229, 88 N. W. 621. from the lapse of time, are applied to cor713. Presumptions of a grant, arising poreal as well as incorporeal hereditaments. They may be encountered and rebutted by contrary presumptions, and can never arise where all the circumstances are perfectly consistent with the nonexistence of a grant. A fortiori, they cannot arise where the claim is of such a nature as is at variance with the supposition of a grant. Ricard v. Williams, 7 Wheat. 59, 5:398 Cited in Jenkins v. Pye, 12 Pet. 262, 9 L. ed. 1079-Fletcher v. Fuller, 120 U. S. 547, 30 L.. ed. 762, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 667-United States v. Chaves, 159 U. S. 464, 40 L. ed. 220 Hays v. United States, 175 U. S. 260, 44 L. ed. 155-Fletcher v. Fuller, 175 U. S. 521, 44 L. ed. 259-Ransdale v. Grove, 4 McLean, 285, Fed. Cas. No. 11,570-Stillman v. White Rock Mfg. Co. 3 Woodb. & M. 549, Fed. Cas. No. 13,446-McClaskey V. Barr, 47 Fed. 163-Roundtree v. Brantley, 34 Ala. 552, 73 Am. Dec. 470-Yankee Jim's Union Water Co. v. Crary, 25 Cal. 509, 85 Am. Dec. 145-Nelson v. Butterfield, 21 Me. 235-Edson v. Munsell, 10 Allen, 569Williams v. Nelson, 23 Pick. 144, 34 Am. Dec. 45-Arnold v. Stevens, 24 Pick. 111, 35 Am. Dec. 305-White v. Loring, 24 Pick. 322-Warfield v. Lindell, 30 Mo. 289, 77 Am. Dec. 614-Downing v. Pickering, 15 N. H. 349-Thorpe v. Corwin, 20 N. J. L. 319Jackson ex dem. Bogert v. Schauber, 7 Cow. 199-Southampton v. Mecox Bay Oyster Co. 116 N. Y. 16, 22 N. E. 387-Den ex dem. Rogers v. Mabe, 15 N. C. (4 Dev. L.) 190Duke v. Thompson, 16 Ohio, 48-Blake v. Davis, 20 Ohio, 242-Taylor v. Watkins, 26 Tex. 693--Smith v. Higbee, 12 Vt. 124Hale v. Marshall, 14 Gratt. 494-Edwards v. Van Bibber, 1 Leigh, 194-Rogerson V. Shepherd, 33 W. Va. 315, 10 S. E. 632. 714. Donations of the public domain for never to be presumed. any purpose are Those who claim against the government under legislative grants must show a clear title. Rice v. Sioux City & St. P. R. Co. 110 U. S. 695, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 177, 28: 289 Cited in Kirby v. Lewis, 39 Fed. 74. record has been preserved of all government 715. Since, during the present century a grants and of the steps leading up to their issue, and a provision made by law for the 711. In general, the presumption of a introduction of copies of the record when grant is limited to periods analogous to the originals are lost, there can seldom be those of the statute of limitations, in cases a presumption of a grant from the governwhere the statute does not apply. Ricard ment, except in cases of very ancient possesv. Williams, 7 Wheat. 59, 5: 398 sions, running back to colonial dates. Cited in United States v. Chaves, 159 U. S. ex dem. Oaksmith v. Johnston (Oaksmith v. 464, 40 L. ed. 220, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57-Johnston) 92 U. S. 343. Hays v. United States, 175 U. S. 260, 44 Cited in Roberts v. Richards, 84 Me. 14, 24 Doe 23: 682 Atl. 425-Dixon v. Dixon, 89 App. Div. 609, 85 N. Y. Supp. 609. S. W. 860-Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Sandf. Ch. 743-Jones v. Porter, 3 Penr. & W. 135-Dieze v. Fackler, 7 Phila. 222, 26 Phila. Leg. Int. 317-McKinney v. Daniel, 90 Va. 704, 19 S. E. 880-Austin v. Allen, 6 Wis. 141-Roebke v. Andrews, 26 Wis. 318 -Illinois Steel Co. v. Budzisz, 106 Wis. 517. 716. A Mexican grant is not presumed to have been made from the fact of continued possession of the land, where possession was originally taken under a permission or license to use the land, and there is nothing to show that the character of the possession 722. A grant will be presumed upon was subsequently changed. Peabody v. Uni-proof of an adverse, exclusive, and uninterted States, 175 U. S. 546, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. rupted possession for twenty years, wher44: 267 ever by any possibility a right may be ac717. Possession under an alleged grant quired in any manner known to the law. made in 1831 by the territorial deputation United States v. Chaves, 159 U. S. 452, 16 of New Mexico, up to the time of the treaty Sup. Ct. Rep. 57, of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in 1848, is not sufficient to raise the presumption of a grant. Chavez v. United States, 175 U. S. 552, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 201, 44: 269 219, 40: 215 Cited in Hays v. United States, 175 U. S. 260, 44 L. ed. 155, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 80-United States v. Chayez, 175 U. S. 522, 44 L. ed. 259, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 159-Chavez v. United States, 175 U. S. 562, 44 L. ed. 273, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 201-United States v. Pendell, 185 U. S. 199, 46 L. ed. 871, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 624-United States v. Devereux, 32 C. C. A. 570, 61 U. S. App. 548, 90 Fed. 188. 723. Long and uninterrupted possession of real property, in the absence of rebutting circumstances, creates a presumption that formal instruments or records of title have once existed, even if they cannot be found. United States v. Chaves, 159 U. S. 40: 215 718. The existence of a proper and valid Spanish grant, and its proper record in the archives of Mexico, within the provisions of article 6 of the treaty of December 30, 1853, with that country, that no grant should be respected which had not been so recorded, may be presumed from satisfactory proof of exclusive and uninterrupted possession under a claim of title continuing from 1790 until the filing of the petition for confirmation of the grant in the court of private 452, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57, land claims, together with evidence of the 724. Long-continued possession and use existence of a grant covering the land so of real property creates a presumption of possessed, and of the destruction by the military forces of the United States of the original documents of title, and of the record of the grant in the place where records of grants of land in the neighborhood were customarily made. United States v. Pendell, 185 U. S. 189, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 624, 46: 866 Cited in Sena v. United States, 189 U. S. 239, 47 L. ed. 791, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 596. 719. A presumptive grant of the right to wharves and water fronts does not arise by long-continued use of them, when the lands and water fronts are owned by the government, in trust for public purposes, and are withheld from sale by the Land Department, without any renunciation of the exercise of jurisdiction and control over them. Morris v. United States, 174 U. S. 196, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 649, 43: 946 720. The possession of land raises a presumption of ownership, in the absence of anything to show the contrary. Bradshaw v. Ashley, 180 U. S. 59, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 297, 45: 423 721. It is not possession alone, but possession accompanied with the claim of the fee, that gives the effect of prima facie evidence of ownership. Ricard v. Williams, 7 Wheat. 59, 5: 398 Cited in Barclay v. Howell, Fed. Cas. No. 975 -Stafford v. Watson, 41 Ark. 31-Skipwith v. Martin, 50 Ark. 154, 6 S. W. 514-Milsap v. Stone, 2 Colo. 139-Mason v. Park, 4 Ill. 533-Lancey v. Brock, 110 Ill. 615 Gosselin v. Smith, 154 Ill. 78, 39 N. E. 980 -Abney v. Austin. 6 Ill. App. 52-Grube v. lawful origin; and this presumption need not rest upon a belief that a conveyance was in point of fact executed. Fletcher v. Fuller, 120 U. S. 534, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 667, 30: 759 725. An unmolested possession for thirty years would authorize the presumption of a grant. Barclay v. Howell, 6 Pet. 498, 8: 477 Cited in Royall v. Lisle, 15 Ga. 548, 60 Am. Dec. 712-Whitehead v. Foley, 28 Tex. 285. 726. A possession of land in the District of Columbia from "prior to October, 1799," to date of suit, in 1818, does not raise a Greenleaf v. Birth. presumption of title. 9 Pet. 292, 9: 132 728. The presumption of a grant is indulged merely to quiet long possession which might otherwise be disturbed by reason of inability to preserve muniments of title actually given but lost, or which parties had neglected to obtain, and of which the witnesses have passed away or their recollection become dimmed and imperfect. Fletcher v. Fuller, 120 U. S. 534, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 667, 30: 759 729. A claim to land in controversy by parties and their ancestors in title for over a century, with payment of taxes thereon and acts of ownership suited to the condition of the property, and actual use for |