This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated.1886 Excerpt: ... Syllabus. In the present case, if the United States land officers, on the first presentation of the scrip to them, had treated it as valid, and issued patents for lands accordingly, and the forgery of the scrip had only been discovered afterwards, and proceedings had then been instituted declaring the patents invalid on that account, the analogy to those cases, though not complete, would have been much greater than it is, and there would have been plausibility in claiming the rule announced in those cases is applicable here. But the United States land officers discovered the forgery of this scrip, and repudiated it, upon presentation. No one was lulled into a moment's inaction by the conduct of those officers in regard to the scrip. It never accomplished any purpose, either temporary or otherwise, and no impediment lay in the way of bringing the suit, from, at least, the time it is admitted appellants knew of the forgery and worthlessness of the scrip. We perceive no cause to disturb the judgment below, and it is therefore affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Mary Bozarth e. W. D. Landers et al. Filed at ML Vernon February 5, 1885. 1. Appeal--on certificate, of Appellate Court--in o suit to foreclose mortgage. On bill to foreclose a mortgage, where the circuit court found against the validity of a tax title claimed by the wife of the mortgagor, acquired by her independent of her husband, an appeal by the wife will lie from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the decree barring the wife from the assertion of her title, when the Appellate Court makes the necessary certificate to enable her to do so. 2. FORECI.OSURK--trying independent title claimed by the wife of the mortgagor. On bill to foreclose a mortgage given by a husband to secure a Brief for the App...