16 FEDERAL REr=0m*Ea.
that he has been dispossessed thereof,—it is ordered that he so amend his bill
as tm: bring these matters, and any others he may be advised, before this
cour ."
, In pursuance of this order, McCormack filed his amended and supple-
mental bill, October 1, 1875,to which the defendants David E. James
and Hansford James filed their answers October 21, 1875. In the mean
time, on the 19th of August, 1875, said David E. James tiled his peti-
_tion, praying that thesaid Micajah McCormack be compelled to pay the
debt of $2,225, secured in said deed of trust, due said James, and that
said McCormack, W. O. Austin, deputy-marshal, their agents, etc., be
yrestrained from executing the writ of possession awarded McCormack by
the decree of June 12, 1875. On this petition a restraining order was
granted as prayed for. V To this petition McCormack filed his demurrer
and answer. On the 3d day of November, 1875, an order was entered
1 dissolvingthe restraining order granted August 19, 1875, and allowing
j McCormack his costs against J ames.‘ From this order an appeal was
taken tothe circuit court. .On the 28th day of March, 1876, the appeal
was docketed in the circuit court at Lynchburg, and an order issued re-
straining McCormack from all further proceedings in the district court,
until the adjudication of the appeal in the circuit-court. Onthe ——-—
'day of March, 1877, the appeal was heard at Lynchburg, by Judge
» BOND, the circuit judge, and the decrees of June 12 and November 3,
—1875,were aiiirmed, and the appeal dismissed. From this decree an
" appeal was' taken by David E. James to the supreme court of the United ·
States. In the isupremecourt the cause was dismissed under the six
t teenth rule of that court. Nothing more was done in the case until June
E 5, 1883, when a decree was entered in accordance with the decree or
V 1874, and the prayer of the amended and supplemental bill filed by ‘
. McCormack, October 1, 1875, referring to M. Ht Honaker, a special
_j commissioner, to take an account, and report " what lia-bility, if any,
-, attaches to the alleged deed of trust exhibited by the defendant David
;’EL James, with his answer,’purportin,<.>; to convey to James Ward, for
othe purposes therein mentioned, the land therein mentioned, by said
‘ Hansford James, which paper bears date April 25, 1861. · What would
" _be a reasonable rent for said land from the 24th of June, 1870, to the
~ 5th day of July, 18757 " The question of rents and profits was, by agree-
·“ ment in writing, signed by the ‘plaintifl' and delendant, submitted to the
  arbitration of James T. Porter and R. C.,Wi1liams, as was also the ques-
A tion asxto the value of permanent improvements put upon the lands by
" the defendant, David E. James, during his occupation under his pur-
  chase from Holbrook, assignee in bankruptcy of Hansford James. Said
i arbitrators made their award, which was adopted by the special com-
I missioner, and made part of his report. — -
  ,The commissioner reports thatthe debt secured by theideed of trust
his a liability, attaching to the plaintiff by reason jot` his purchase of the .
» land conveyed in the trust deed. » The substance of the report is that the
. debt of $2,225: is a lien on the land, and this is the main point of con-
·‘ troversy in thiscause. - - · " » » “ ~ » = i = » ~