Homer v. Austin, EJECTMENT. SEE ADVERSE POSSESSION, 1-13. LANDS, 9, 30, 55. 688 1. Where the plaintiff in ejctment claimed under a patent from the United States, and the defendants under a claim confirmed by the district court on which an appeal had been entered, but which had not been surveyed nor any patent issued, the instruction to the jury, "that in the action of ejectment the legal title must prevail, that the plaintiff had a legal title by his patent, and the defendant's, if any, was but an inchoate and equitable title which could not avail the defendant in action of ejectment," was correct. Singleton v. Touchard, 50 2. The plaintiff in ejectment must recover, if at all, upon his legal title, as it stood at the commencement of the suit. Johnston v.Jones, McCool v. Smith. 117 218 3. A deed could not help plaintiff when it was made since the action was brought, and recited that the grantor intended by a former deed to convey the lands in dispute, and conveys same to plaintiff. Johnston v. Jones, 117 4. If a patent is absolutely void upon its face, or the issuing thereof was without authority or prohibited by statute, or the State had no title, it may be impeached collaterally in a court of law in an action of ejectment. Rice v. M. & N. W. R. R. Co., 147 5. In ejectment the court properly left to the jury to find whether the land sued for was within plaintiff's grant. Bates v. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. 158 6. An equitable title will not sustain an ejectment in the Federal Courts. Claggett v. Kilbourne, 213 7. Although a patent for land is the elder, yet if the patentee took it subject to another title the latter independently of any question of adverse possession, must prevail. Dredge v. Forsyth, 253 8. The action of ejectment determines no right but those of present possession. Hardy v. Johnson, 502 9.One tenant in common has right of possession as against all parties but his co-tenants, or persons holding under them. SEE APPEAL AND ERROR, 19, 20, 27, 33, 65, 66. FRAUD, 1-7. LANDS, 7, 30, 56, 137. LIMITATIONS, 9, 10. NUISANCE, 1–14. 1. A bill to relieve title from adverse claims and to restrain a multiplicity of suits, is maintainable. Crews v. Burcham, 91 2. Where plaintiff's deed was duly recorded before the purchase of the defendants, and those deriving title under this deed were in possession claiming title, this operated as notice to the subsequent purchasers. Idem. 91 3. In equity a party cannot succeed upon a case proved, but not alleged, any more than upon a case alleged, but not proved. Foster v. Goddard, 228 304 5. In equity the purchase money of land is treated as a lien on the land sold, where the vendor has taken no separate security. Idem. 304 6. A married woman should not be permitted to take property without paying for it, more than another. Idem. 304 7. The disabilities thrown around her by the law, are for protection, not to enable her to commit fraud. Idem. 304 8. Where execution was issued and levied upon land, the owners of the land are entitled in equity to remove it, as being a cloud on the same. Ward v. Chamberlain, 319 9. But real estate cannot be sold in such proceedings in chancery to satisfy such decree. Idem. 319 10. Where the plaintiff brings his suit in behalf of himself and all others interested in the same issue of bonds, the decree should declare the equality of lien of all these bondholders with plaintiff, and should provide for them the same relief which it gives to him. 13. A general demurrer is a denial in form and substance of the right of complainant to have his case considered in a court of equity, but also an admission that all the allegations of it which were properly pleaded were true. Idem. 353 14. Where a proceeding to set aside an entry for land was ex parte and without notice, a court of equity may inquire into the proceedings and afford relief. Lindsey v. Hawes, 265 15. The equity jurisdiction of the courts of the U. S. is derived from the Constitution and laws of the U. S. Noonan v. Braley, 278 16. The powers and rules of the U. S. Courts are the same in all the states; their practice is regulated by themselves, and by rules established by the Supreme Court, unaffected by state legislation. Idem. 278 17. It was not competent for the court below to make a decree that mortgagor pay the balance which may remain unsatisfied after exhausting the proceeds of the mortgaged premises. 278 Idem. 18. Suits in equity cannot be sustained where plain adequate, and complete remedy can be had at low. Parker v. Winnipiseogee Co., 333 19. The concurrent jurisdiction of courts of equity in cases of private nuisance is now established, but is not without limitation. Idem. 333 20. Many cases of private nuisance will sustain an therefore, ought to have succeeded in the action at action at law which will not justify relief in equity. Idem 333 21. A court of equity will interfere when the injury by the wrongful act of the adverse party will be irreparable. Idem. 333 22. It will also give its aid to prevent oppressive and interminable litigation, or a multiplicity of suits, or where the injury is of such nature that it cannot be adequately compensated by damages at law. Idem. 333 23. This jurisdiction is applied only where the right is clearly established, where no adequate compensation can be made in damages, and where delay itself would be a wrong. Idem. 333 28. A court of chancery will not maintain a bill merely to declare future rights. Cross v. Del Valle. 575 29. There are exceptions to this rule, as bills filed by executors or trustees for a construction of a will. Idem. 575 30. In such cases, from necessity and in order to protect the trustee, a court will settle questions as to the validity and effect of contingent limitations in a will, even to persons not in esse. Idem. 575 31. But where no necessity exists, the court has no power to decree, as to the future rights of parties not before the court or in esse. Idem. 575 32. A court of equity will look into the proceedings before the register and receiver, and into those of the land office or other offices, where the right of property of the party is involved, and correct errors of law or of fact to his prejudice. 551 Minnesota v. Batchelder, Jones v. Green, 553 34. In a suit in equity, unless the complainant has a right to relief in equity, however clear his rights at law, he can have no redress. This objection is one which, though not raised by the pleadings nor suggested by counsel, this court is bound to recognize and enforce. law. ESTOPPEL. SEE MARRIED WOMAN. SEE BILLS AND NOTES, 4. EQUITY, 25. ERROR, 2, 5-11, 17, 18, 22-24, 28-30. 836 LANDS, 12, 13, 16, 27, 37-39, 42, 52, 66, 85, 100, 105, 109, 132, 134. NEGLIGENCE, 1, 2, 8. PATENT RIGHTS, 3, 19, 24, 29. PRIZE, 1-3, 14. QUESTIONS OF LAW AND FACT, 2-5, 7, 8. Hogg v. Ruffner, 1. Testimony of conversations with the parties, as to the contract between them, cannot be received to contradict the written contract. 38 2. There was no error in receiving a letter of the creditor to his attorney, as evidence. Laflin v. Herrington, 45 3. It is incompetent for a witness to compute the growth of an accretion in former years by his own calculations, based on maps and diagrams, where he had no personal knowledge of the maps, or of the accretion. 117 Johnston v. Jones, 4. The refusal to allow a witness to testify what were his duties as superintendent of the harbor in 1841 and 1842, with a view of proving what were his successor's duties as such officer in 1834-5, was correct. Idem. 117 5. On cross-examination questions to a witness to affect his credibility with the jury, are wholly within the discretion of the judge. Idem. 117 Idem. 6. The court properly refused to allow the plaint33. A suit in equity commenced for the satisfac-iff to examine a witness upon anything not rebuttion of judgments before the issue of execution ting to the proof made by defendants, after plaintthereon, cannot be maintained. iff had closed his case. 117 7. Maps are only properly admitted in evidence to explain, illustrate, and apply the testimony of the witness. Idem. 117 8. A map is only valuable as proved to have been made by one competent to do so, and present to verify his work. Idem. 117 9. Reports of soundings are not evidence and could not affect the rights of the parties. Idem. 117 10. Maps and plats of other places, relating to other dates, where they are not connected with the titles of the parties, are not evidence. 117 16. Receipts for taxes and accompanying letters 601 Miles v. Caldwell, 8. The power to establish and regulate ferries is 755 tion. 19. Where a complainant in a bill in equity calls Tobey v. Leonards, 842 SEE MORTGAGE, 1-17, 19-24. FORMER ADJUDICATION. 191 SEE LANDS, 2, 6, 20, 28, 62, 80, 84, 132, 137, 139. The Adromeda v. U. S., 849 21. The burden of proof lies on the person who as- 857 22. Circumstances altogether inconclusive, if sep- The Reindeer v. U. S., 911 23. Parties cannot give their private correspond- Freeborn v. Smith, 922 3. Where a state statute authorizes any person in 783 SEE EQUITY, 42. 1. Under the laws of Kentucky a ferry franchise Conway v. Taylor's Executor, 191 2. Any riparian ownership, or right of landing, on 191 191 LANDS, 54, 55, 85, 94, 133. PARTNERSHIP, 15-18. VENDOR AND VENDEE, 1-4, 10. 783 1. In sale by masters under decrees, purchasers, who have bid off the property are entitled to a hearing upon the question whether the sales shall be set aside. Blossom v. R. R. Co., 673 2. If a court errs in setting aside a judicial sale improperly, purchasers at the sale have a right to carry the question by appeal to a higher tribunal. Idem. 673 3. The decision of the court, in refusing to confirm or complete a judicial sale, involves the merits of the case, and an appeal therefrom will not be dismissed. Idem. 673 4. Although a judgment or decree may be reversed, yet, all rights acquired under it at a judicial sale, while it was in full force, which it authorized, will be protected. Gray v. Brignardello, 692 Jefferson Br. Bank v. Skelly, 173 5. A decree which is interlocutory in which no au- 11. There is a difference between the power of the thority is given to sell until a commissioner had re- | court upon a question of jurisdiction and its au thority over its mode of proceeding and process. Pratt v. Fitzhugh, 206 Idem. 206 Idem. 206 United States v. Sepulveda, 569 35. If the survey does not conform to the decree Idem. 569 39. A claim for a fund under a will, depending Campbell v. Read, 40. A writ of error does not lie to an order of the Idem. 43. A purchaser or bidder at a master's sale, sub- Minnesota Co. v. St. Paul Co., 861 44. A decree in a foreclosure action, ascertaining LANDLORD AND TENANT. 1. Where in a lease it was stipulated that if the 2. Receiving rent with knowledge of the breach 680 Kutter v. Smith, |