on it and place a tenant there, or had given some near by laborer what he could make off of a few acres for clearing, fencing, and cultivating it, the entry of the squatter would be upon the owner's actual possession, and proof of title would be unneces

sary.

If one neglects what he claims is his property, fails to look after it, cares not to make it a benefit to society by making it a home for some one, or a producer of food, he has no right to complain, when he finds another in the actual possession, that he cannot turn that other out without showing that the land is lawfully his.

I believe that many lawyers who make this objection to the action, fail to remember the exceptions which have been noted.

PROCEEDINGS AFTER PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE.

When the plaintiff has offered his evidence, the defendant may demur, or may offer his evidence to overthrow that of the plaintiff, or to show an adverse possession for the statutory period, or a better title in himself or in another, or may go to the jury on the plaintiff's evidence, as in other cases.

It is where the plaintiff's evidence has been given in that the lawyer for the defence should be most careful and exercise his best skill and judgment. It is then that he should remember all that he ever knew about conveyancing, limitation of estates contingent remainers, executory devises, and the like. If, when he was waiting for clients, he was reading Coke on Littleton, Fearne on Contingent Remainders, Preston on Conveyancing, and other light (?) literature of that kind, he may find a weak point in his adversary's title, which he would not find if he had spent the same time in studying the pedigree of pointer pups, or the peculiar structure of jack pots, and may save himself the labor, and his client the risk, of opening up a doubtful defence. If he must make an affirmative defence, what he has learned from the works mentioned, or others like them, will be of great service in telling him how to do it, and will also tell him that many of the sins laid to the charge of the action are the results of misunderstandings or ignorance, and arise out of the rules of construction and conveyancing, and not the rules of practice.

It may not be amiss to call your attention to the fact that the legislature of 1902-3-4, reversed the rule in Rensens v. Lawson 91 Va., 226 and Stearns v. Harman, 95 Va. 58. with regard to the burden of proof where the plaintiff claims under a grant, which contains a reservation of land which is not so described in the grant, or by reference on the face of the grant, by courses and distances and natural boundaries or otherwise, as to enable the same to be readily and accurately identified by a competent surveyor, and requires the defendant to show that he is on such reservation, unless it otherwise so appears. Code Sect. 2734 a.

The rule as established by the cases named, was causing much injustice, and would, if permitted to remain in force, have caused the rightful owners of large tracts of mountain lands, very great losses.

THE VERDICT AND JUDGMENT.

The verdict, as provided by Sect. 2744 Code, may be for the plaintiffs or any of them who show a right to recover, and against any of the defendants who were improperly in possession of the land when suit was brought, and for any who were not so possessed.

The verdict must, on its face or by reference to some document in the record or in the evidence which can be made a part of the record, describe the land found for the plaintiff, as specifically as is required in the declaration; it must also specify the estate found in the plaintiff, and the judgment must be according to the verdict. Code Sect. 2746, 2748, & 2750.

The verdict is as flexible as the declaration and the judgment is adjusted to the verdict.

Sect. 2756 of the Code provides that the judgment shall be conclusive as to the title or right of possession established in such action, upon the party against whom it is rendered, and against all persons claiming from, through, or under such party., by title accruing after the commencement of such action, except in the case of infants and insane persons, who are, by the next section, given five years from the removal of such disability, to bring another action.

That there must be some proceeding by which the title and right of possession to lands can be settled by the courts, is a self evident proposition, and will remain so, as long as man needs a home, and recognizes that his existence is dependent upon the increase of the soil.

That the present system is perfect, no one will contend, that it is much better than many think it, I hope this paper has shown.

If it is permissable to suggest improvements, I would suggest that instead of permitting a plaintiff to make all persons claiming an interest in the premises, parties defendant with the actual occupant, he should be required to do so as far as he knows them, and that when it appeared on the trial that the plaintiff or both parties are claiming the property in good faith under actual color of title, there should be a comparison of titles and a verdict and judgment in favor of the better title. There are objections to this last proposition, but by properly guarding the provisions of such a statute, more good than harm may be done.

I am aware of the many imperfections of this paper, and that it will appear almost trivial to some of you to whom much of it is but the A B C of your learning, but it has been written with the hope that it may help some of the younger members of our profession, who will soon begin to struggle with the many perplexing problems pertaining to land titles. If it is helpful to one, I will submit cheerfully to the criticisms of two.