Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/792

 )T8^ FEDERAL REP/)BTEE. �has lived on the land with his family, and feneed it and built a barn and occupied it as & fanji until now, when the im- provements are worth $700 or $800; and that he has paid the taxes on the land during his occupaney, and ail the while ever since he first entered on the land claimed the exclusive titie and right of possession under and by virtue of the tax defed to Elverson and Elverson's deed to him. �The defendant testifies as follows : "I bought the land of Peter Elverson in November, 1866. This is the deed. He gave me his tax deed at that time. I broke four acres in June, 1867. This was on both 40's. I did grubbing on the east 40. I hauled logs that were eut off the land to build a house. I built a hpuse first and then a barp. Have im- proyed between 25, and .30 mf^a for farming purposes. Ajn a, manof family and live. on the land. I moved on the land in October, 1868. Have lived there ever si^c^, , I have occu- pied the land ail the , time, claimipg title an^,in,good faith believing that I had good title to the l^n.^,. X had the land eurve^fe^i?. I was present with the surveyqr and helped him sury^yàt. ,1 know the.line betweenthe t-woeO.'s., The house is on the.east 40 and the barn ojij,the westieO." ;, EliVprson itesfiaea Jo subf tafl-ti^lly the ,sapp ifaçts. Previ- ouB to the time ,defeiidan|; en,t,e;çed'0n, the l,an4,iniader the fluitf^laipa jfrora Elyerson ,the .laijd was wild,( vacant» and unoçcupied. This isuit.wag begn^ by the service o| isummons on SeçJiepiber 28, 1877. �!,, Th,e plaintiff's çounsel makes, various objections ,to ,the Bufficieiioy of the, ita,x ^eed : First. ,That the witnessicig is not accordi^g to law in^hia, tfiat the statute forra requires the witnessing to be "done in presence pf," whereas in this deed the fprmj observed is "in presence of," the word." done," being left- opti : ,The statute requirement is that the deed shallibe fiubstanti^Uy in the, f orm, prescribed, or other equivalent form,, Itis quit^.,clear that the deed in this respect, there being two witnesses as the ,la,w requires, is sufiScient. Sec ond, That the acknowledgment is defective. But upon inspection I find the acknowledgment very full and in proper ����