¶1Adverse possession <g=»48—Not interrupted by recording of deed by adverse claimant.
¶2Mere recording of a deed by one claimant does not interrupt tbe actual possession of an adverse claimant under a previously recorded title.
¶3f§zs>For Gtber cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
¶4Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Canal Zone; John W. Hanan, Judge.
¶5Suit in equity by Domingo Diaz A. and others against Guillermo Patterson. Decree for defendant, and complainants appeal.
¶6Affirmed.
¶7Harry P. Gamble and Harry McEnerny, Jr., both of New Orleans, Da., and William H. Jackson, of New York City, for appellants.
¶8Wm, C. MacIntyre, of Ancon, Canal Zone, and Edwin T. Merrick and Ralph J. Schwarz, both of New Orleans, La. (Todd & MacIntyre, of Cristobal, Canal Zone, and Merrick, Gensler<& Schwartz, of New Orleans, La., on the brief), for appellee.
¶9Before WALKER, BRYAN and KING, Circuit Judges.
¶11The case is fully stated in 262 Fed. 899, upon a former appeal. There a decree in favor of the original plaintiffs and present appellants was reversed, and the case remanded for findings upon the evidence as to possession of the land is dispute.
¶12Upon the evidence then in the record, and upon additional evidence taken since, the trial court has found that the original defendant Patterson, appellee here, has been in actual adverse possession for more than 30 years, and, further, that appellants have never been in possession of the lands in dispute. The court also finds as a fact that appellee established record title.
¶13Appellants do not assign, error upon the finding that record title is in appellee, nor is it seriously contended that there was not testimony to support the other findings of fact. Some contention is made as to the credibility of witnesses for appellants, but the District Judge heard the witnesses testify, and also viewed the lands. There is abundant *395evidence to support the finding of fact as to appellee’s possession, but no useful purpose would be served by setting it forth.
¶14The principal argument for reversal of the decree below is upon the question of law decided upon the former appeal. It is again argued that the mere recording of a deed by one claimant interrupts the actual possession of an adverse claimant under a previously recorded title. We are convinced that this is not the law, and adhere to our former opinion.
¶15The decree is affirmed.