Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/547

 m'iNTYBB V. THOMPSON. 535 �back as 1.817, by persons who were claiming and ueing the same as owners, and that such occupation and use were continued up to 1835, when the lands were purchased at sheriff's sale by their ancestors. They also introduced evidence tending to show that such pnrchasers and their heirs, by themselves, their tenants, and agents, were in pos- session of said lands until 1861, the commencement of the late civil war. �On the first issue of facts submitted to you under the direction of the court, I charge you that if you are satisfied from the evidence that the plaintiffs, or those under whom they claim^ were at any time in the actual and continuons possession of the lands by thernselves, or their tenants and agents, for the period of 30 years, under well- known and visible Unes and boundaries, you will find this issue in favor of the plaintiffs. In case of such possession it is not neoessary to show "color of title." If you find this issue in favor of the plainr tiffsj suchfinding will establish their title, and you need not consider the second and third issues. If you find this first issue against the plaintiffs, then you will proceed to consider the second issue sub- mitted. �Upon this second issue I charge you that the sheriff's deed to Yates & Mcintyre was color of title, and if you are satisfied from the evidence that the plaintiffs, or those under whom they claim, had seven years' continuons possession of said lands under known and visible boundaries, then they establish a title against everybody except. the state; and title may be shown out of the state if indi- viduals have had possession of the same for 30 years under known and visible lines and boundaries, using them as private property; and the seven years' possession under color of title may be computed as a part of the 30 years' adverse possession against the state. Such occupation and use raise a presumption of a grant. It is not neci- essary to show that such adverse possession was continuous, or th&t there was connection and privity between the holders, �The general facts that the state or its agents allowed first one and then another to oecupy and use the lands as private property for bo long a time, raises the presumption that the state had granted the lands to some one. It is not necessary to fix upon any one a^ grantee so that the title is out of the state. The presumption of et grant from long possession is not ba-sed upon the idea that one act. ually issued, but beoause public policy and the quieting of titles make it necessary for the courts to act upon that presumption. You will consider the evidence 'and apply it ,to the principles of la^w whioh J ��� �