867; Frink v. Roe (1886) 70 Cal. 296, 11 Pac. 820; Dondero v. O'Hara (1906) 3 Cal. App. 633, 86 Pac. 985. Colorado.-Bay State Min. & Townsite Co. v. Jackson (1900) 27 Colo. 139, 60 Pac. 573. District of Columbia.-Anderson v. Smith (1883) 2 Mackey, 275; Beale v. Brown (1888) 6 Mackey, 574, affirmed in (1892) 149 U. S. 766, 37 L. ed. 960, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1043; Morris v. Wheat (1897) 11 App. D. C. 201; Reid v. Anderson (1898) 13 App. D. C. 30; Chesapeake Beach R. Co. v. Washington, P. & C. R. Co. (1904) 23 App. D. C. 587; Bursey v. Lyon (1908) 32 App. D. C. 231; Robinson v. Hillman (1911) 36 App. D. C. 576. Florida.-Doyle v. Wade (1887) 23 Fla. 90, 11 Am. St. Rep. 334, 1 So. 516. Georgia. McConnell v. Rhodes (1853) 14 Ga. 313; Wood v. McGuire (1855) 17 Ga. 303; Miller v. Surls (1856) 19 Ga. 331, 65 Am. Dec. 592; Roe V. Doe (1869) 38 Ga. 597; Scott v. Singer (1875) 54 Ga. 689; Blalock V. Newhill (1887) 78 Ga. 245, 1 S. E. 383; Brinkley v. Bell (1906) 126 Ga. 480, 55 S. E. 187; Deen v. Williams (1907) 128 Ga. 265, 57 S. E. 427; Gable v. Gable (1908) 130 Ga. 689, 61 S. E. 595; Walker v. Steffes (1913) 139 Ga. 520, 77 S. E. 580. Illinois. McConnel v. Johnson (1840) 3 Ill. 522; Tilghman v. Little (1851) 13 Ill. 239; McClure v. Engelhardt (1855) 17 Ill. 47; Hall v. Lance (1861) 25 Ill. 277; Holbrook v. Brenner (1863) 31 Ill. 501; Pollock v. Maison (1866) 41 Ill. 516; Huls v. Buntin (1868) 47 Ill. 396; Hartshorn v. Dawson (1875) 79 Ill. 108; Cairo & St. L. R. Co. v. Parrott (1879) 92 Ill. 194; Roosevelt v. Hungate (1884) 110 Ill. 595; Smith v. Laatsch (1885) 114 Ill. 271, 2 N. E. 59; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Hardt (1891) 138 Ill. 120, 27 N. E. 910; Lake Erie & W. R. Co. v. Whitham (1895) 155 Ill. 514, 28 L.R.A. 612, 46 Am. St. Rep. 355, 40 N. E. 1014; Burns v. Edwards (1895) 163 Ill. 494, 45 N. E. 113; North Chillicothe v. Burr (1900) 185 Ill. 322, 57 N. E. 32; Brown v. Schintz (1903) 203 Ill. 136, 67 N. E. 767; Birge v. Centralia (1905) 218 Ill. 503, 75 N. E. 1035; Worley v. Crawford (1911) 252 III. 378, 96 N. E. 821. Indiana.-Pierson v. Turner (1850) 2 Ind. 123; Wilson v. Peelle (1881) 78 Ind. 384; Boyce v. Graham (1883) 91 Ind. 420; Nitche v. Earle (1889) 117 Ind. 270, 19 N. E. 749; McWhorter v. Heltzell (1890) 124 Ind. 129, 24 N. E. 743. V. Indian Territory. Wilhite Coombs (1904) 5 Ind. Terr. 354, 82 S. W. 772. Iowa.-Conger v. Converse (1859) 9 Iowa, 554; Byers v. Rodabaugh (1864) 17 Iowa, 53; Morrison v. Wilkerson (1869) 27 Iowa, 374. Kentucky.-Gay v. Moffit (1812) 2 Bibb, 506, 5 Am. Dec. 633; M'Clain v. Gregg (1820) 2 A. K. Marsh. 454; Alsop v. Weir (1885) 7 Ky. L. Rep. 366 (abstract); Luen v. Wilson (1887) 85 Ky. 503, 3 S. W. 911; Rateliff v. Bellfonte Iron Works Co. (1888) 87 Ky. 559, 10 S. W. 365; Smith v. Bradley (1889) 10 Ky. L. Rep. 1029, 11 S. W. 370; Barnett v. Minnick (1891) 13 Ky. L. Rep. 503, 17 S. W. 334; Davis v. Clinton (1904) 25 Ky. L. Rep. 2021, 79 S. W. 259; Tarvin v. Walker's Creek Coal & Coke Co. (1904) 25 Ky. L. Rep. 2246, 80 S. W. 504; McGuire v. Whitt (1904) 25 Ky. L. Rep. 2275, 80 S. W. 474; Hellard v. Nance (1908) Ky. L. Rep. -, 114 S. W. 277; Watkins v. Northern Coal & Coke Co. (1909) Ky., 119 S. W. 225; Slone v. Kelley (1911) 143 Ky. 135, 136 S. W. 138; Cryer v. McGuire (1912) 148 Ky. 100, 146 S. W. 402, Ann. Cas. 1913E, 485; Burchett v. Scott (1917) 176 Ky. 669, 197 S. W. 397; Russell v. McIntosh (1918) 179 Ky. 677, 201 S. W. 33. - Louisiana. Bedford v. Urquhart (1835) 8 La. 234, 28 Am. Dec. 137; Cotton v. Stacker (1850) 5 La. Ann. 677; Andrews v. Knox (1855) 10 La. Ann. 604; Weil v. Zodiag (1882) 34 La. Ann. 982; Clemens v. Meyer (1892) 44 La. Ann. 390, 10 So. 797. Maryland. Funk v. Newcomer (1856) 10 Md. 301; Elwood v. Lannon (1867) 27 Md. 200; Ahern v. White (1873) 39 Md. 409; Jay v. Michael (1895) 82 Md. 1, 33 Atl. 322. Michigan. Johnstone v. Scott (1863) 11 Mich. 232; Campau v. Campau (1877) 37 Mich. 245; Cronin v. Gore (1878) 38 Mich. 381; Eames v. McGregor (1880) 43 Mich. 313, 5 N. W. 408; Van Den Brooks v. Correon (1882) 48 Mich. 283, 12 N. W. 206; Drake v. Happ (1892) 92 Mich. 580, 52 N. W. 1023; Killackey v. Killackey (1909) 156 Mich. 127, 120 N. W. 680. Minnesota. Horning v. Sweet (1880) 27 Minn. 277, 6 N. W. 782; Coleman V. McCormick (1887) 37 Minn. 179, 33 N. W. 556; Mitchell v. Chisholm (1894) 57 Minn. 148, 58 N. W. 873; Thompson v. Ellenz (1894) 58 Minn. 301, 59 N. W. 1023. Mississippi. Doe ex dem. Huntington v. Pritchard (1848) 11 Smedes & M. 327; Wolfe v. Doe (1849) 13 Smedes & M. 103, 51 Am. Dec. 147; Smith V. Doe (1853) 26 Miss. 291; Hughes v. Wilkinson (1855) 28 Miss. 600; Griffin v. Sheffield (1860) 38 Miss. 359, 77 Am. Dec. 646; Gordon v. Sizer (1863) 39 Miss. 805; Myrick v. Wells (1876) 52 Miss. 149; Wade v. Thompson (1876) 52 Miss. 367; Morgan v. Hazlehurst Lodge (1876) 53 Miss. 665; McCready v. Lansdale (1881) 58 Miss. 877; Gillum v. Case (1890) 67 Miss. 588, 7 So. 551; Slack v. Swain (1891) Miss., 8 So. 545; Richards v. Lee (1908) 91 Miss. 657, 45 So. 570; Myers v. Viverett (1915) 110 Miss. 334, 70 So. 449. - Missouri. Mathews v. Lecompte (1857) 24 Mo. 545; Chouquette v. Barada (1862) 33 Mo. 249; Merchants' Bank v. Harrison (1867) 39 Mo. 433, 93 Am. Dec. 285; Brown v. Brown (1870) 45 Mo. 412; Fellows v. Wise (1872) 49 Mo. 350; Fugate v. Pierce (1872) 49 Mo. 441; Union Bank v. Manard (1873) 51 Mo. 548; Holland v. Adair (1874) 55 Mo. 40; Butcher v. Rogers (1875) 60 Mo. 138; Miller v. Hardin (1877) 64 Mo. 545; Cunningham v. Snow (1884) 82 Mo. 587; Charles v. Patch (1885) 87 Mo. 450; Smith v. Lindsey (1886) 89 Mo. 76, 1 S. W. 88; Grandy v. Casey (1887) 93 Mo. 595, 6 S. W. 376; Huff v. Morton (1887) 94 Mo. 405, 7 S. W. 283; Ebersole v. Rankin (1891) 102 Mo. 488, 15 S. W. 422; Finch v. Ullman (1891) 105 Mo. 255, 24 Am. St. Rep. 383, 16 S. W. 863; Sell v. McAnaw (1897) 138 Mo. 267, 39 S. W. 779; Simpson v. Kilpatrick (1898) 148 Mo. 507, 50 S. W. 435; Worley v. Hicks (1901) 161 Mo. 340, 61 S. W. 818; Stevenson v. Black (1902) 168 Mo. 549, 68 S. W. 909; Sloan v. Chitwood (1909) 217 Mo. 462, 116 S. W. 1086; Feller v. Lee (1910) 225 Mo. 319, 124 S. W. 1129; Howell v. Sherwood (1912) 242 Mo. 513, 147 S. W. 810; Akins v. Adams (1914) Mo. ,164 S. W. 603; St. Louis v. Wiggins Ferry Co. (1884) 15 Mo. App. 227. Nebraska. -- Barton v. Erickson (1883) 14 Neb. 164, 15 N. W. 206; Carson v. Dundas (1894) 39 Neb. 503, 58 N. W. 141; McCarthy v. Birmingham (1902) 2 Neb. (Unof.) 724, 89 N. W. 1003. New Jersey. Den v. Winans (1833) 14 N. J. L. 1. New York.-Jackson ex dem. Bowne v. Hinman (1813) 10 Johns. 292; Jackson ex dem. Hill v. Streeter (1826) 5 Cow. 529; Jackson ex dem. Livingston v. Walker (1827) 7 Cow. 637; Jackson ex dem. Norris v. Smith (1827) 7 Cow. 717; Jackson ex dem. Witherell v. Jones (1828) 9 Cow. 182; Bowne v. Potter (1837) 17 Wend. 164; Phelan v. Kelly (1841) 25 Wend. 389; Zahm v. Dopp (1892) 19 N. Y. Supp. 863; Second M. E. Church v. Humphrey (1894) 142 N. Y. 137, 36 N. E. 812; Sheridan v. Cardwell (1911) 145 App. Div. 609, 130 N. Y. Supp. 638. North Carolina.-Murphy v. Barnett (1813) 6 N. C. (2 Murph.) 251; Den ex dem. Ives v. Sawyer (1838) 20 N. C. 179 (4 Dev. & B. L. 51); Den ex dem. Love v. Gates (1839) 20 N. C. (4 Dev. & B. L.) 363; Den ex dem. Gilliam v. Bird (1848) 30 N. C. (8 Ired L.) 280, 49 Am. Dec. 379; Copeland v. Sauls (1853) 46 N. C. (1 Jones, L.) 70; Johnson v. Watts (1853) 46 N. C. (1 Jones, L.) 228; Thomas v. Kelly (1854) 46 N. C. (1 Jones, L.) 375; Feimster v. McRorie (1854) 46 N. C. (1 Jones, L.) 547; Newlin v. Osborne (1855) 47 N. C. (2 Jones, L.) 163; Brown v. Smith (1861) 53 N. C. (8 Jones, L.) 331; Doe ex dem. McDougald v. McLean (1863) 60 N. C. (1 Winst. L.) 120; Whissenhunt V. Jones (1878) 78 N. C. 361; Caldwell v. Neely (1879) 81 N. C. 114; Christenbury v. King (1881) 85 N. C. 229; Ryan v. Martin 1884) 91 N. C. 464; Ferebee v. Hinton (1889) 102 N. C. 99, 8 S. E. 922; Bonds v. Smith (1890) 106 N. C. 553, 11 S. E. 322; Cooper v. Axley (1894) 114 N. C. 643, 19 S. E. 639; Warren v. Williford (1908) 148 N. C. 474, 62 S. E. 697; Person v. Roberts (1912) 159 N. C. 168, 74 S. E. 322; Moore v. Johnson (1913) 162 N. C. 266, 78 S. E. 158; Waldo v. Wilson (1917) 173 N. C. 689, 92 S. E. 692. Ohio. Doe ex dem. Foster v. Dugan (1837) 8 Ohio, 87, 31 Am. Dec. 432. Oklahoma. - Young v. Chapman (1913) 37 Okla. 19, 130 Pac. 289. Oregon.-Dolph v. Barney (1874) 5 Or. 191. Pennsylvania. Thompson v. Graham (1872) 9 Phila. 53; Miller v. Wilson (1798) 2 Yeates, 294; Riddle v. Murphy (1821) 7 Serg. & R. 230; Patton v. Goldsborough (1822) 9 Serg. & R. 47; Stewart v. Shoenfelt (1825) 13 Serg. & R. 360; Zeigler v. Hautz (1839) 8 Watts, 380; Turner v. Reynolds (1854) 23 Pa. 199, 12 Mor. Min. Rep. 190; Clark v. Trindle (1866) 52 Pa. 492; Clough v. Welsh (1911) 229 Pa. 386, 78 Atl. 1000. South Carolina.-Hill v. Robertson (1846) 32 S. C. L. (1 Strobh. L.) 1; Pyles v. Reeve (1851) 38 S. C. L. (4 Rich.) 555; Geiger v. Kaigler (1880) 15 S. C. 263; Lyons v. Holmes (1883) 19 S. C. 406; Smythe v. Tolbert (1884) 22 S. C. 133; Izlar v. Haitley (1885) 24 S. C. 382; Rhett v. Jenkins (1886) 25 S. C. 453; Johnson v. Cobb (1888) 29 S. C. 372, 7 S. E. 601; Burnett v. Crawford (1897) 50 S. C. 161, 27 S. E. 645; Cave v. Anderson (1897) 50 S. C. 293, 27 S. E. 693; Levi v. Gardner (1895) 58 S. C. 24, 30 S. E. 617; Kilgore v. Kirkland (1904) 69 S. C. 78, 48 S. E. 44; Carr v. Mouzon (1910) 86 S. C. 461, 68 S. E. 661; Bethea v. Allen (1913) 95 S. C. 479, 79 S. E. 639. South Dakota.-Horswill v. Farnham (1902) 16 S. D. 414, 92 N. W. 1082; Bliss v. Tidrick (1910) 25 S. D. 533, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 854, 127 N. W. 852, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 671. horn v. Oakdale Iron, Coal & Transp. Co. (1896) Tenn., 43 S. W. 360; Smith v. Turner (1898) Tenn., 48 S. W. 396; Beasley v. Rowly (1898) Tenn. 52 S. W. 322; Hyder v. Butler (1899) 103 Tenn. 289, 52 S. W. 876; Carver v. Maxwell (1902) 110 Tenn. 75, 71 S. W. 752; Rucker v. Hyde (1907) 118 Tenn. 358, 100 S. W. 739; Stockard v. McGary (1908) 120 Tenn. 180, 109 S. W. 507; Wilson v. Wilson (1917) 137 Tenn. 590, 195 S. W. 173. Texas. Paschal v. Acklin (1863) 27 Tex. 173; Keys v. Mason (1875) 44 Tex. 140; Pearson v. Flanagan (1879) 52 Tex. 266; Stegall v. Huff (1881) 54 Tex. 193; Sellman v. Hardin (1882) 58 Tex. 86; Crabtree v. Whiteselle (1885) 65 Tex. 111; Calder v. Ramsey (1886) 66 Tex. 218, 18 S. W. 502; Howard v. Masterson (1890) 77 Tex. 41, 13 S. W. 635; Lasater v. Van Hook (1890) 77 Tex. 650, 14 S. W. 270; Burns v. Goff (1891) 79 Tex. 236, 14 S. W. 1009; Rice v. St. Louis, A. & T. R. Co. (1894) 87 Tex. 90, 47 Am. St. Rep. 72, 26 S. W. 1047; Dycus v. Hart (1893) 2 Tex. Civ. App. 354, 21 S. W. 299; Starr v. Kennedy (1893) 5 Tex. Civ. App. 502, 27 S. W. 26; Collins v. Davidson (1894) 6 Tex. Civ. App. 73, 24 S. W. 858. Vermont.-Bown v. Bean (1814) 1 D. Chip. 176; Bush v. Whitney (1821) 1 D. Chip. 369; Brooks v. Chaplin (1831) 3 Vt. 281, 23 Am. Dec. 209; Braintree v. Battles (1834) 6 Vt. 395; Ames v. Beckley (1875) 48 Vt. 395. Virginia. Bolling v. Teel (1882) 76 Va. 487; Atkinson v. Smith (1896) 2 Va. Dec. 373, 24 S. E. 901; Chesterman v. Bolling (1904) 102 Va. 471, 46 S. E. 470; Carter v. Wood (1904) 103 Va. 68, 48 S. E. 553; Marbach v. Holmes (1906) 105 Va. 178, 52 S. E. 828; Casselman v. Bialas (1911) 112 Va. 57, 70 S. E. 479; Johnson v. McCoy (1911) 112 Va. 580, 72 S. E. 123; Virginia Coal & I. Co. v. Ison (1912) 114 Va. 144, 75 S. E. 782; Jennings v. Marston (1917) 121 Va. 79, 92 S. E. 821. West Virginia.-McClung v. Echols (1872) 5 W. Va. 204; Laidley v. Central Land Co. (1887) 30 W. Va. 505, 4 S. E. 705; Low v. Settle (1889) 32 W. Va. 600, 9 S. E. 922; Carrell v. Mitchell (1892) 37 W. Va. 130, 16 S. E. Wyoming. Hecht v. Boughton (1880) 2 Wyo. 385. The rule is recognized with practical unanimity in the several jurisdictions, and is expressed by the various courts with noticeable similarity of language. Thus, in Scott v. Singer (1875) 54 Ga. 689, in the official syllabus, the rule as applied to the facts of that case was stated as follows: "If both parties in an action of ejectment, or of complaint for land, claim under the same third person, title need not be traced into such third person." tle from the same person, it is not competent for either, as a general rule, to dispute that title. That principle, when it applies, is an exception to the general rule that the plaintiff must prove a complete title in himself." "It is a well-established rule of law that, when both the plaintiff and defendant claim the property in controversy under the same person, neither of them can deny the right or title of the person under whom they so claim; and, as between themselves, the one having the elder has the better title, and must prevail. The conclusion thus established between the parties is not strictly and technically an es toppel, but it is in the nature of and has the practical force and effect of an estoppel." Ryan v. Martin (1884) 91 N. C. 464. "It is well established as an inflexible rule that, where both parties claim under the same person, neither of them can deny his right, and then, as between them, the elder is the better title and must prevail." Christenbury v. King (1881) 85 N. C. 229. "It is not necessary to show that the defendant has a complete title to the land; if there is no title paramount to it, it is sufficient to show that under a valid contract he claims to hold and has possession of the property under the common source. If the defendant has a bond for title, or other contract of purchase, or an unThe rule was recognized in the opin- registered deed for the land, and is And in Roe v. Doe (1869) 38 Ga. 597, the rule was thus laid down by the court: "When both parties derive their title from the same person, plaintiff in ejectment need not show title in such person." ion of the court in Funk v. Newcomer (1856) 10 Md. 301, wherein it was said: "A party is estopped from denying a title which is recognized in a deed under which he claims." In Wade v. Thompson (1876) 52 Miss. 367, the rule is stated as an exception to the doctrine as to the proof of title, as follows: "In the action of ejectment, if both parties trace title to the same source, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to go further and prove that it is good against all the world. Both litigants tracing their right to a common origin, the inquiry is limited to the ascertainment of which has the elder and better title. When both parties derive ti in possession thereof, this will be sufficient evidence of a claim under the common source. It will be presumed that he claims under such contract. The purpose is to show that he claims the property under the common source, that he admits his relation to it and claims under it, without regard to the sufficiency or perfectness of the title." Ryan v. Martin (N. C.) supra. In Hecht v. Boughton (1880) 2 Wyo. 385, the general rule was thus expressed: "It is a uniform principle of ejectment that, if both parties claim title from the same source, it is treated for all the purposes of the case that title resided in that source; each party is estopped from denying it; and so far as respects that source, the controversy is reduced to the inquiry, Which party, plaintiff or defendant, if either, has got title from that source?" "A plaintiff must generally show title good against the world, while a defendant can ordinarily prevent his recovery by showing a better outstanding title in any person. But it is an old and well-established rule, adopted originally for convenience in the trial of actions of ejectment, that where both parties claim title under the same person, neither will be allowed to deny that such person had title. While a defendant in such cases may set up a title superior to him through whom both claim as the common source, provided he connects himself with it, he is not allowed, as in other cases, to show a better title than that of the plaintiff in a third person. Where the plaintiff shows from the deeds offered, or the admissions in the pleadings, that both claim from a common source, he is required to exhibit a better title in himself, derived from it, than that of the defendant, in order to establish prima facie his right of recovery." Bonds v. Smith (1890) 106 N. C. 553, 11 S. E. 322. "The principle deducible from [the] authorities seems to be that whatever may be the form or nature of the conveyance used to pass real property, if the grantor sets forth on the face of the instrument, by way of recital or averment, that he is seised or possessed of a particular estate in the premises, and which estate the deed purports to convey; or, what is the same thing, if the seisin or possession of a particular estate is affirmed in the deed, either in express terms or by necessary implication, the grantor and all persons in privity with him shall be estopped from ever afterwards denying that he was so seised and possessed at the time he made the conveyance. The estoppel works upon the estate, and binds an after-acquired title as between parties and privies." Van Rensselaer v. Kearney (1850) 11 How. (U. S.) 297, 13 L. ed. 703. "Where the parties in an action of 7 A.L.R.-55. ejectment claim title from a common source, the plaintiff in the first instance is only required to show title in himself from the common source. It must be understood, however, that this rule applies to cases where the common source of title is either admitted by the defendant or established by the plaintiff's proof, not in cases where the defendant denies that he derives his title from the common source with the plaintiff. If the plaintiff relies upon a chain of title starting at such common source, the burden is upon him to show the title in the alleged common source." Butt v. Mastin (1905) 143 Ala. 321, 39 So. 217, quoting Newell, Ejectment, 579. The ruling in Cox v. Hart (1892) 145 U. S. 376, 36 L. ed. 741, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 962, supra, was approved and followed in Cooke v. Avery (1892) 147 U. S. 375, 37 L. ed. 209, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340, wherein the court said: "Defendants could not question the validity of their grantor's title at the time of the conveyance to them, in a contest with plaintiff, claiming under the same grantor, unless, indeed, they claimed under a paramount title, which they had acquired or connected themselves with." And in Robertson v. Pickrell (1883) 109 U. S. 608, 27 L. ed. 1049, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 407, it was said: "Nor can the grantee in a contest with another, whilst relying solely upon the title conveyed to him, question its validity when set up by the latter. In other words, he cannot assert that the title obtained from his grantor, or through him, is sufficient for his protection, and not available to his contestant. Where both parties assert title from a common grantor, and no other source, neither can deny that such grantor had a valid title when he executed his conveyance." In Winding Gulf Colliery Co. v. Campbell (1913) 72 W. Va. 449, 78 S. E. 384, the rule was thus stated in the official syllabus: "A well-recognized and established exception to the rule requiring the plaintiff in ejectment to trace his title from the state is the estoppel in law arising out of a common source of title. In such case, the |