` 38 rao1~;n.u. iucroarnn.
After the defendants had offered their evidence of possession and
I of improvements, plaintiffs were unwilling to risk their case upon the
_ objections made to the introduction of many of the deeds under which
defendants claimed. I should have stated, however, that the defend-,
ants rested their case after introducing their deeds, and evidence of
use and occupation, payment of taxes, etc. The plaintiifs,I say,
seemed unwilling to trust the case in that condition, and plaintiffs
then offered in evidence the transfer which they had declared a
forgery, viz., a purported transfer from Charles Morgan to T. S. Mil-
ford to the certincate, and then offered in evidence a transfer from T.
S. Milford to Robert W. Nelson, no objection being made to the in-
troduction of the same by the defendants; the plaintiffs asserting
that they introduced the same in order to show that the same was a
forgery, and if that were established, it precluded the defendants from
all benefit of the five years limitation. This transfer or purported
transfer from Charles Morgan to Milford bears date, or rather the
acknowledgment bears date, the sixth day of November, 1840 ; and
» was taken by Thomas Harvey, notary public. There is nothing on its
face indicating that the same is not valid, and the evidence showed that
Harvey was a notary in Matagorda county when the acknowledgment
purports to have been taken. The transfer from Milford to Nelson
bears date the eighteenth day of October, 1850, acknowledged before
S. W. Psnxms, chief justice of Brazoria county. I have before
stated that B. W. Nelson deeded the same to Mrs. Nat. Moore, Jan-
uary 20, 1875. It thus appears that, if the deed from Charles Mor-
gan to Milford was and is a genuine deed, the plaintiffs have no in-
terest in the land, and that the defendants have a regular chain of
title, from and under the sovereignty, of the soil, as, under our statute,
the patent to the land, although to Charles Morgan, inures to the
benefit of his assignees.
As I stated, the plaintiffs themselves offered in evidence the trans-
fer from Charles Morgan to Milford, and no objection was made to its
introduction by the defendants. The plaintiffs, being advised of the
existence of this transfer, nled an afhdavit stating that the same was
believed to be a forgery. This aihdavit precluded the defendants from
introducing the same in evidence without establishing its genuine-
ness. It may well be understood how diliicult it would be for the
defendants to prove that fact in the mode required by the common
law. The defendants, therefore, without attempting this arduous
I task, saw fit to rest their case upon the proofs adduced by them of
possession, use, and occupation under their deeds. It is believed that
when the plaintiffs saw fit to put the same, i. e., the transfer from
Morgan, in evidence, that it was too late for them to assert that the
same was not there for all legal purposes; and the defendants, in or-
der to claim the benefits thereof, wererelieved from proving such
facts as would have been necessary for them to have shown in order
to establish it as an ancient document. The force of the argument,