UNION Pac. RY. oo. v. MEIER. 9
the decree directs a sale of land not described in the bill, and it is
contended that the court may ignore everything from the time of the
decree pro coufcssc, enter a new decree as though nothing had been
done,—one correctly describing the land,—and have a sale and con·
Brmation under this new decree. Of course, that would be a cheap A
and easy way of disposing of the case, but I do not think that it is in
harmony with the equity rules. Under the old equity practice, when
a case terminated the decree was enrolled. Thereafter, and after the
close of the term, it could not be disturbed, except by hill of review.
V We have no enrollment, technically so called, in this country, and
yet the same principle controls. All decrees are deemed to be ene
A rolled as of the term in which they are made. Whiting v. Bunk, 1*3
Pet. 6; Dexter v. Arnold, 5 Mason, 303. Although the decree may
not be responsive to the language of the bill, yet the record is com!
pleted, and the court cannotdisturb it thereafter. A mere clerical
mistake in Bgures is sometimes corrected on motion, buttwhere a
foreclosure case has passed into a decree, the sale made and conf
Brmed, it is to be looked upon as something complete, and if thereis
any mistake in it, it should be corrected by a bill in review; and while
that may involve a little trouble and expense, it is the only safe way
to do. I ” U,  
Union Pic. RY. Co. v. Mama and others. ‘ ·
(Oircuet Court. D. Kansas. June 9, 1886.) ‘
1. EQUITY—BILL ·ro QUIET T1·rLE-Sorrrornnov.
Where, in a bill to quiet title. defendants demur specially on the ground of
their actual occupancy of the land in controversy, and the further ground
that complainants equity is barred by lapse of time, and the bill itself fails to
show clearly who is in actual possession, or when complaiuantacquired title.
the demurrer will be overruled.
2. SAME-—DEMURRER, wmzn Pnormt. '
A pleading must be clear and positive in its allegation of material facts, or
a demurrer thereto assuming the allegation of those facts will be overruled.
In Equity. .
Bill to quiet title, and special demurrer thereto on the ground that
defendants actually occupy the land in controversy; and the further
ground that complainant’s equity is barred by lapse of time.
J. P. Usher, for complainant.
Lucien Baker, for defendants. I
BREWER, J. In this case there is a demurrer to the bill, which is a.
bill to quiet title. The Union Pacific Railway Company claims to
own a right of way, to the extent of 400 feet in width, and has Bled
this bill against a number of parties, alleging that in 1867 a certain
company laid out the town of Linwood, made a plat, Bled it, and that