against Long and others, to recover possession of the south half of section 22, township 27 north, range 13 west. The plaintiff gave in evidence a patent to Robert Hord, including the premises, dated November 1, 1839, and a deed from Hord to John M. Patton, and the will of Patton, by which the lot in question was devised to the plaintiff, and rested.

The defendant offered in evidence a deed from the sheriff of the county of Iroquois to L. M. Peck, including the premises in question, dated July 1, 1864, which purported to be a deed upon a sale for taxes; a deed from Peck and wife to B. L. T. Bourland, dated July 1, 1864; and from Bourland and wife to Isaac Underhill, dated April 29, 1865, and then offered in evidence five tax certificates of payment of taxes on the lot for the year therein mentioned, stating that his object in offering said evidence was to show title to the premises, and to require the payment of said taxes by the plaintiff, in case he questioned the title of Underhill under the statute. But the court held that the defendants had not brought themselves within the act of February 21, 1861, to which ruling there was an exception.

All the questions presented in this case have been disposed of in the case of Little v. Herndon, except as to the admission of the will of J. M. Patton. The only one material point to notice is that it was not properly proved or probated. But the proofs are conclusive that it was proved in the Circuit Court of the city of Richmond, Virginia, agreeably to the laws of that State, and according to the laws of Illinois, the will was as available in proof there as if probated in that State. Judgment affirmed.

Mr. B. C. Cook for plaintiffs in error.

Mr. Conway Robinson for defendant in error.

UNDERHILL v. HERNDON.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

No. 197. Argued April 25, 1870.- Decided April 30, 1870.

Little v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 26, followed.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the court

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

This is a suit in ejectment against Underhill, in the court below,

to recover possession of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter, and the south half of the northwest quarter, section 26, township 27 north, range 13 west.

The opinion in the case of Little v. Herndon disposes of all the questions raised and decided in this case in the court below.

Mr. B. C. Cook for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Conway Robinson for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

STURTEVANT v. HERNDON.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

No. 198. Argued April 25, 1870.— Decided April 30, 1870.

Little v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 26, followed.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

This suit in ejectment was brought by Herndon against Sturtevant, in the court below, to recover possession of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter, and the south half of the northwest quarter of section 26, township 27 north, range 13 west. The opinion in Little v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 26, disposes of all the questions in this case.

Mr. B. C. Cook for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Conway Robinson for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

UNDERHILL . PATTON.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS.

No. 199. Argued April 25, 1870. Decided April 30, 1870.

Little v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 26, followed.

Long v. Patton, ante, 573, followed.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

The suit in ejectment was brought by Mrs. Patton against Under

hill, in the court below, to recover possession of the south half of section 22, township 27 north, range 13 west.

All the questions in this case are disposed of in the cases of Little v. Herndon, 10 Wall. 26, and Long v. Patton, ante, 573. Judgment affirmed.

Mr. B. C. Cook for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Conway Robinson for defendant in error.

SUPERVISORS v. UNITED STATES ex rel. DURANT.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IOWA.

There being no error, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a writ of error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa.

The writ of error brings up the petition of the relator for an alternative writ of mandamus to the Supervisors of Poweshiek County, commanding them to levy a tax sufficient to pay a judgment against the county; a return, demurrer to the same, judgment sustaining demurrer; a writ of peremptory mandamus, and leave granted till next term to make a sufficient return to peremptory mandamus; or, if not, that an attachment issue returnable forthwith. We perceive no error in the proceedings, and the judgment for peremptory mandamus is Affirmed.

Mr. S. V. White for plaintiff in error.

Mr. James Grant for defendant in error.

GODBE v. TOOTLE.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF UTAH.

No. 258. Argued April 22, 1870. Decided April 30, 1870.

This court will not review a judgment in favor of a firm, if the writ of error does not name the persons who compose it.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CHASE delivered the opinion of the court. This is a motion to dismiss the writ of error by which the cause is brought here from the Supreme Court of the Territory.

The writ of error describes the judgment as rendered in favor of Tootle, Leach & Co., without naming the persons who composed the firm. But it has been often held that such a writ is irregular and that this court will not undertake to review a judgment thus described. The cases are cited in Mussina v. Cavazos, 6 Wall. 355, and need not be more particularly referred to.

The motion to dismiss the writ must be allowed.

Mr. A. G. Thurman, Mr. R. N. Baskin, Mr. T. W. Bartley, and Mr. F. P. Stanton for the motion.

Mr. J. M. Carlisle and Mr. John Titus opposing.

MCCOLLUM v. HOWARD.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IOWA.

No. 344. Argued February 4, 1870. Decided March 7, 1870.

This court will not take jurisdiction over an interlocutory decree.

MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court.

The decree in this case, made on the twenty-sixth day of May, 1869, is interlocutory and not final. The appeal from it must, therefore, be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

Mr. S. W. Fuller, Mr. B. C. Cook, Mr. Thomas F. Withrow, for appellants.

Mr. James Grant for appellees.

UNITED STATES v. POLLARD.

UNITED STATES v. KOHN.

UNITED STATES v. STANTON.

APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

Nos. 391, 359, 390. Argued February 8, 9, 10, 1870. — - Decided February 28, 1870. Affirmed on the authority of United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall. 56.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE DAVIS delivered the opinion of the court. There are no material points of difference between these cases and the case of The United States v. Anderson, 9 Wall. 56, decided at this term, and the views presented in that case dispose of these. The judgment of the Court of Claims in each of the above-named Affirmed.

cases is

VOL. CLIV-37

Mr. Attorney General and Mr. R. S. Hale for appellant.

Mr. A. G. Riddle for Pollard, Mr. J. A. Wills for Kohn, and Mr. George Taylor for Stanton.

RILEY v. WELLES.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF IOWA.

No. 397. Submitted February 14, 1870. Decided March 7, 1870.

Wolcott v. Des Moines Co., 5 Wall. 681, followed.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

MR. JUSTICE NELSON delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa.

This case is not distinguishable from that of Wolcott v. The Des Moines Company, 5 Wall. 681.

Welles, the plaintiff below, derives his title by deed from this company, the same as Wolcott in the former case. The suit in that case was brought to recover back the consideration money from the Des Moines Company, the grantors, on the ground of failure of title. The court held that Wolcott received a good title to the lot in question under his deed.

In that case it was insisted that the title was not in the Des Moines Company, but in the Dubuque and Pacific Railroad Company.

In the present case the defendant claims title under, and in pursuance of, the preëmption act of September 4, 1841.

Her husband took possession of the lot in 1855, and she was permitted by the register to prove up her possession and occupation, May, 1862. The patent was issued October 15, 1863.

It will appear from the case of Wolcott v. The Des Moines Company that the tract of land, of which the lot in question was a part, had been withdrawn from sale and entry on account of a difference of opinion among the officers of the land department as to the extent of the original grant by Congress of lands in aid of the improvement of the Des Moines River, from the year 1846 down to the resolution of Congress of March 2, 1861, and the act of July 12, 1862, which acts we held confirmed the title in the Des Moines Company. As the husband of the plaintiff entered upon the lot in 1855 without right, and the possession was continued without right, the permission of the register to prove up the possession and