' LAMPREY v. PIKE. 31
from the United States to him, show that he is the holder of the le-
gal title to the property in controversy. He also produces in his bill,
and relies upon, a judgment of the district court of Ramsey county,
in which court he had brought a similar action, and obtained a de-
cree quieting his title. If that suit hadended there with a decree in
his favor, plaintiff need not have proceeded further, and there would
have been no necessity for this suit; for it appears that the proper
publication was made in accordance with the statutes of the state of
Minnesota with regard to unknown or absent defendants. But these
parties, who are interested here, and are defendants in this case, ap·
peared in that court within a_ period of one year from the time when
thejudgment was rendered, and on their appearance the order of the
court, so far as they were concerned, was practically set aside; or,
at least, an order was made that the case should be reopened, and
they be permitted to come in and defend. As far as we are informed,.
that order remains, and no further proceedings have been taken in `
the case. It seems to us, however, very plain that that nullilies the
_ the order as a judgment of res adjudicam against those parties who
are permitted to come in and defend. It cannot be relied upon as
concluding the parties, when, by their appearance within that time,
they are permitted to defend; and it goes to show that this is not, as
to them, a conclusive decree, and that the judgment may be set
aside.
Then, coming to the consideration of the case on its merits, we are
satisfied that the plaintiff shows a regular derivation of title from the
government of the United States to the land and lots in controversy;
but the defense sets up a sale of those lands under a judgment against
former owners by the name of Ambs and Whitman, in each of whom
at one time an interest was vested, according to the evidence, by title
from those who had held it. The lands lay in Dakota county at the
time that judgment was rendered in Ramsey county against Ambs
and Whitman. An attempt was made, under the statute of the state
of Minnesota, to have a transcript of that judgment filed in the court
of Dakota county, and docketed in that court. A sale was made
under the judgment of the Ramsey county court on an execution
issued to the sheriff of Dakota county, and these defendants claim
that the land was purchased by their ancestor Pike, who was the
plaintiff in the judgment suit, and who got a sheriiT’s deed regular on
its face, and that the title through him is in them.
The question involved is one of some difficulty, owing to the fact
that there is a dispute whether the judgment was correctly placed
on the docket of the Dakota county district court, in regard to the
spelling, of the names. A photograph of the docket entry is pro-
duced to us to show that the name as found in that entry is not
Ambs, but is something else. It is, perhaps, as dithcult to say what
else it is, as to say it is Ambs. But there are two or three matters
to be considered about that, apart from the mere difficulty of deci-