The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-13
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

WASHINGTON, FeO. II, 1875.
1885, Lewis vs.. Hawkins and Haunter-Appeal
from the Circuit Court for the Western District
OF Arkansas.-Lewis sold land In Arkansas to
Hawkins and took two notes in part payment,
giving bond to make title on the payment OF the
notes. subsequently Hawkins sold TO the hus.
band OF Haunter and atterward failed to pay the
notes to Lewis. Judgment having been recovered
these, 1t Is now sought to make 1t lien on the
land for the purchase money. Hawkins pleaded
bankruptcy against any decree, and Iiaunter
pleaded the statute OF limitations OF the
for title was never recorded 1t conveyed no
legal interest TO Hawkins but only an equity with
the right OF possession, and that on the failure Of
Hawkins to pay the notes, the bonds were for.
ieited and Lewis was entitled TO possession. The
estate, therefore, being vested IN Lewis, he could
have no lien on that which Is his own. Having
failed to regain possession, he cannot now avoid
the statute bar by setting up lien for the pur-
chase money. This decision Is assigned as error.
Cause submitted on the printedG uieE A. Il. Gar.
land Tor appellant; Pike Jonnsol Tor appellees,
No. 1s9. Connoyer ct al, VS.. Schafrer- Error to
the Supreme Court OF Missouri,-This was an
action OF eJectment to try title toa lot OF Rnd in
st. Louis, which had been confirmed TO one Mrs.
poS oa nsr g By
the Board OF Commissioners appointed under the
acts OF 1882 ana 1888. The palntirs claim as heirs
OF the widow, asserting that the property Injured
TO the benefit of those showing themselves
to be representative as heirs or asslgnees.
The defendants claim as heirs OF one Lobemine,
or to whose benefit the confirmation Injured as the
claimant before the Board OF commissioners, and
also TO part or the promises under q onnrma.
ton to one Gene. The decision was for the de-
fendants below and here, the Court ruling that all
combinations by the commissioners under the act
OF 1882, and confirmed by the act OF 1888, were
confirmation TO the persons presenting the claim
to the Board that as between two conhrmees the
one In possession has the better title, and cannot
be evioted although the palntt1s have the euuita.
bic title from the Spanish government and legal
title from the United States. This ruling is as
signed as error. Whtttlesy Cunningham for
plaintiffs, Glover Shepey Tor defendants.
No. l90 Govinzel vs.. Crump ct aL-Error to the
Circuit Court for Virginia.-rhis was an action on
bond secured by real estate to secure loan to the
defendants IN error. The loan was made at Rich.
mond, Va, In 1863 and was not to mature until
the close of the war, and was not to bear interest
meantime, nor was It to become due at the close
OF the war until demand was made by Govinzel or
his representatives. There was also provision in
the bond that the loan might at any time be
rendered to the plaintiff or his attorney
in lact,. in the city Of Richmond and
to no others, and only these. The money
loaned was Confederate notes, or otner
ike funds. then bankable In Richmond; but this
fact did not appear in the bond or deed OF trust,
being proven below by other evidence. Two