852
FEDERAL REPORTER.
547; Adams v. Burke, 17 Wall. 445; Littlefield v. Perry, 21 Wall. 223. As to appeals: Canter v. Amer. & O. Ins. Co. 3 Pet. 307 j Elastic .r'aul'ic Co. v. Smith, 100 U. S. 110. \
Judgment on Special Findings-Coverture-Disability from. COLLINS 'V. RILEY. This was an action brought up to the supreme court in error t{) the district court for the district of West Virginia. The defendant in error, claiming to be the owner of large tracts of land, brought an action to recover the possession from the plaintiffs in error. A trial was had before It jnry, which resulted in a verdict for the defendants, which verdict was, on motion, set aside and a new trial had, upon which the jury brought in a special verdict for the plaintiff. The case was heard on a writ of error, and the supreme court, at the October term of 1881, rendered its decision affirming the judgment of the lower court. Harlan, J. Where the jury find a special verdict, in an action for the possession of lands, the court may enter judgment 011 such finding for the plaintiff as to certain portions, and for the defendant, all a general finding, as to other portions of the land. The adverse holding or possession of land for the statutory period will not bar the right to bring an action for its recovery while a party is under the disability of coverture, even though the remedy may be barred as to her husband. Patent Rights-Subject to Debt of Patentee. AGER 'V. MURRAY. In this case it was decided, at the October term, 1881, by Mr. Justice (}ray, that a patent right may be subjected by bill in equity to the payment of a judgment debt of the patentee. The cases cited in the opinion were: Hesse v. Stevenson, 3 Bas. & P. 565; Longman v. Tripp, 2 New Rep. 67; Bloxam v. Elsee, 1 Car. & P. 558; Mawman v. Tegg, 21{ussell, 385; Edelsten v. Vick, 11 Hare, 78; Hudson v. Osborne, 39 L. J. (N. S.) Ch. 79; MeDermutt v. Strong, 4 Johns. Ch. 687; Spader v. Davis, 5 Johns. Ch. 280; Edmeston v. Lyde, 1 Paige, 637; Wiggin v. Heywood, 118 Mass. 514; Sparhawk v. Cloon, 125 Mass. 263; Daniels v. Eldredge, 125 Mass. 356; Drake v. Rice, 130 Mass. 410; Stephens v. Cady, 14 How. 529; Stevens v. Gladding, 17 How. 447; Massie v. Watts, 6 Cranch, 148; Ashcroft v. Walworth, 1 Holmes, 152; Gordon v. Anthony, 16 Blatchf. 234; Gillette v. Bate, 86 N. Y. - - j Pacific Bank v. Robinson, 57 Cal. - - j Cooper v. Gunn, 4 Dill. 594.
V. Sl::l50N.
85D
ELLIS
V.
SISSON and others.
(On-cui' Oowrt, No D. Illinois. March 27, 1882.) REMOVAL OF CAUSE-THE WHOLE COlSTUOVERSY TO BE REMOVED.
When a cause is brought within the terms described in the second and third sections of the act of :March 3, 1875, the whole suit is removed, and not a part; and if a person has only such an incidental interest as stated growing out of the litigation he cannot remove the cause.
George' W. Spahr, for plaintiff Spahr. Charles Dunham and Chas. M. Osborn, for defendant. DRUMMOND, C. J. This is a. motion to remand this cause to the circuit court of Peoria county, from whence it came. It is a controversy of many years' standing, to which John M. Waugh, at one time the owner of 480 acres of land in Mercer oounty, Benjamin T. Sis. son, who, with Waugh, had erected a steam flouring.mill, Henry B. Ellis, and others were parties. The facts are very complicated, and many questions have arisen in the course of the litigation in whioh different parties and different interests have been involved. The objeot has been to dispose of the property in suoh a way as to have the proceeds divided for the benefit of various olaimants; a principal controversy being, who had the prior'claim and lien upon the property ? There were bills for speoific performance, for foreolosure o{ mortgages, various cross-bills, supplemental bills, amendments, answers, and replications. The litigation commenced as long ago as March, 1861, and the first case reported is that of Sumner v. Waugh, 56 Ill. 531. The decree rendered in that oase in the lower court was reversed by the supreme court. The case then went baok to the circuit court and oame up again as the case of Cable v. Ellis, and is reported in 86 Ill. 535. In both these cases the facts relating to the controversy are stated with more or less fullness. The decree of the lower court was again reversed in Cable v. Ellis, and on the oase being sent back to the court below a decree was rendered which was again appealed through the appellate court to the supreme oourt of the state and is reported as Ellis v. Sisson, 96 Ill. 105, where the decree of the appellate court was reversed, and the case was again returned through the appellate court to the oircuit court of Peoria county. It will thus be seen that the litigation has oontinued through the various courts of this state for 20 years, during which time it has been before the supreme court of the state three times. It Wl. S after v.ll,noA-23