SULLIUN V. UNION PACIFIO RAILROAD 00.
period. Adams v. Rockwell, 16 Wend. 285, Long acquiescence in the location of a fence, as a dividing line, estops the parties from controverting the correctness of the location. Columbet v. Pacheco, 48 Cal. 395. The acquiescence in this case has been for more than the period prescribed by the statute of limitations of Nevada, and the plaintifi cannot now question the boundary SO long agreed to. The defendant has never claimed title to the land lying between the hedge and the fence. He says that he claimed title to the hedge as upon the true line, but set the fence & little outside of it as a protection to his hedge. The judgment will have to be in favor of plaintiff for the possession of so much of the land. described in the complaini &s lies outside of the hedge, and no more.
SULLIVAN .". THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY.
(Oireud Oourt, D. Nebrallka. - - , 1880.)
DAMAGEs-NlJGLIGENCE.-In the absence of a statute damage8 cannot be recovered by a father from a railroad company for causing the death of a minor Bon.
The petition states the following facts, viz.: The plaintiff, a citizen of Omaha, was the father of James Sullivan, who, on the twelfth day of July, 1872, was killed by the negligence of defendant, the Union Railroad Company; that at the time of said killing said James Sullivan was hired by plaintiff to defendant at two dollars per day. Plaintiff sues to recover wages at that rate during the minority of the deceased, about four years. A. J. Poppleton, for defendant, on hearing on demurrer, claimed that there could be no recovery, there being no statute providing for such a case. J. T. Redick, for plaintiff, argued that the action being grounded in contract no statute was necessary.
MCCRARY, O. J., (orally.) This is an action for damages by .. father, who seeks to recover from the railroad company by leason of negligence in cau81llg the death of a minor son. fhere is a demurrer to the petiti<>n. '£he supremo court have decided in a recent 0088 that there .a.n be no 8uoh rocovery in the absence of a 8tatute. The demuner will be BUBtained.
(Oircuil Court, D. New
BANKRUPTcy-ASSIGNEE-AOTION BY, TO VACATE CONVEYANCE.-In aD action by an assignee in bankruptcy to vacate a conveyance made by the bankrupt as being in fraud of creditors, the burden of proof is upon him to prove such fraud clearly and decisively. SAME-SAME-SAME-SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.-Evidence in this case held insufficient, as against the sworn answers of defendants, to show a conveyance made by a bankrupt to have been in fraud of creditors. ACTION TO VACATE CONVEYANCE-RELIEF DENIED.-Prayer that one of defendants be required to pay amount of a certain note to complainant as assignee, and that the other defendant be required to surrender the same to complainant, denied; it appearing that the holder of such note was dead, and the maker thereof had a valid set-off to the same, and U had been adjusted between the parties. 5AME-PARTIEs.-In an action by an assignee in bankruptcy to set aside a conveyance made by the bankrupt upon the ground the sarno ia fraudulent as to creditors, the bankrupt is not a proper party.
H. Heywood and H. S. Clark, for complainants. Ra.y, Drew &; Heywood, for defendants.
CLARK, D. J. On the seventeenth day of October, 1873, Horatio N. Allen was seized of certain lots of land in the town of Stratford, in the county of Coos, in the state of New Hampshire. On that day, by deed of warranty, he conveyed these lots of land to Willis Wilder, of Bethlehem, in the state of Naw Hampshire, and Richard H. Wilder, of Guildhall, in tha state