NORTHERN PAC. It. CO. t1. KRANtCH.
and ,their liabilityfbr the repairs, made urider their' contract, lawfully entered into by them as receivers of the Wabash Company, became and remained a liability binding upon the trust in their hands, and nothing has been' shown relieving this trust from the liability thus incurred. Let an order be entered, directing the payment to intervener by Solon Humphrey and Thomas E.Tutt, as receivers of the Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company, and out of and against any property in their hands as such receivers', of the sum of $266.79, with interest at 6 per cent. from April 27, 1886.
R. Co· .".
(Oircuit Court. D. Montana. November 14, 1892.)
ejectment to, recover Jan4, in Monta.na, anallmtssion in the answer ,tbat toe "title is in the \Jnited States is not inconsistent witlj. a plea of the statute , of 'limitation,for possessiOn held in subordination to the title of the United States may be adverse as to all others.
At Law. Action in ejectment by the Northern Pacific Railroad Company against Ernst Kranich. On motion to strike from the answer alleged inconsiRtent averments. Overruled. F. M. Dudley and W. E. OttUen, for plaintiff. H. G. McTntire, for defendant.
KNOWLES, District Judge. Plaintiff commenced, a suit against the defendant in the nature of an action of ejectment to recover the possession of certain real estate. The complaint is in the usual form, showing the ownership of plaintiff, the entry and ouster by defendant, and the retention and possession of same by him. The answer denies the ownership of plaintiff, and admits pOE>session in"defendant. The answer sets up as new matter the statute of limitation, and also facts showing that the defendant had applied to enter said land under the pre-emption laws of the United States, and the contest upon this application of defendant, and the ruling of the register and receiver of the United States land office at Helena, Mont., in his favor. Plaintiff filed its motion to 'strike out this clause in said answer setting up the statutes of limitation, on the ground that the same was inconsistent with the allegations in the sixth clause of the answer, which shows that defendant did not claim said land adversely as against the United State,s, but under and in ordination to its laws, and acknowledged its title to the same. It is admitted that the general rule is that, in order for one to make out a title by adverse possession, the person so claiming must claim title to the premises possessed as against all others. McCracken v; Oity
of San F'rancUJco, 16 Cal. 591. It
that the decision is limited in tilis case to theposs6ss10n maintained under color onide. But I am to find any npon ,this point as to whether a person tel,'S ,UHder color of, title or without. Perhaps a better way of stating the nature of claim as to title that should be made by one claiming is that he silould claim as owner. The fact that he admits th!l.t allpther is owner, of does not claim title against all others, would ,be insufficient. Tpere isn6 doubt that in the ',adrhits ownersQjp:.ofthe property in the United States. Is there any exception as 10 the general hf\ve stated? I think in aU of the western states there is an exception thereto. If a party claims title to land here against all persons but the United States, that is sufficient. This view is recognized in the cases of Francoeur v. Newhouse, 43 Fed. Rep. 236; Hayes 'T. Martim, 45 Cal. 563; McManus v. O'Sullivan, 48 Cal. 15. In this state I am satisfied the. rule, is ,well established not to allow, as a plea of title in a third party, of title in the United States. For many years nQ on!:lin heJP,title til real property against the United States. The adniission, theri,' that the title to the property was in the United States was not all inconsistent wit4 the, plea of the 8tatute··o£ limitations by defendant asagllinst plaintiff, and the two inconsisteXlt. Fortl1esE!, the motion of to strike out is overruled.
&N. W. Ry., CO. v,
Ootober 17, 1892.)
(Circuit OourtOf 4ppeals,Eighth 01lrcuit.
CARRIERS-INTERSTATE COHMERCE-LONG AND SnORT HAULS-JOINT TARIlI'P }tATES. '
two r!'oilroadcornpanies owning connecting lines of road unite in a joint througb tariff, the,Y form for tbeconnected roads a new and independent line, andtbe through tariff on the joint line is not the standard by which the separate tariff Qf eitherc;loinpany is to be measured'in determining whether suchsep!'orate Act Feb. 4. 1887. 4, which forbids greater compensation for,asborter than for a longer haul. 48 Fed. Rep. 49, reversed. Under,section;6 of tbeillt6rstate commerce law. (Act Feb. 4, 1887,) and the order of the commission of June 21, 1887, relating- to the publication of joint tariffs, it'is not necessary: for "ither of the connecting lines to publish their jQinttarilfata noncoinpeting point, or to volunteer information of such tariff to shippers. '
SAlliE -PUBLIOATION OF JOINT TARIFF }tATE,NoNCOMPETING POINT.
In Error tQtheCircuit Conrt of the United States for the Southern District q[Jowa. At ' Actions by John Osborne and H. A. Junod and anotheragllinst & Northwestern Railway Company for damages for-