26€·Y . -. » rnnnnnn. anronrnn. . . t
I could not have gained citizenship under five years. There is also on iile
the aiiidavitof one John P. Kinneavy, to the effectthat in theyear 187 3,
in Denver, he saw in Wood’s possession certain "naturalization papers
or declarations " which were issued in the town of Iola or Emporia, state
of Kansas,_in,1871 or 1872. Full search has been made in the records
of Greenwood county and elsewhereiin the state of Kansas, and no record
of Wood’s `declaration of intention to become a citizen, or of his natural-
’ ization, can be found. In the absence of such record, it is clear that no
such vague oryuncertain statement as that made by Kinneavy can be re-
ceived. .—An;d in a case of this kind, where the fact is of recent occurence,
and there is nothing like concurrent acquiescence in its existence on the
part of thoseinterested in theproperty, it is clear enough that no such
evidence asfthat here offered can be recognized. In such a case the fact
of naturalization or ofthe declaration of intention to become a citizen
must be rovedbythe record of some court of competent jurisdiction.
Green·v.·§alae,i31 Fed. Rep. 107; Dryden v. Swinburne, 20 W. Va. 90.
In some cases,·whe1·e it is sought to overturn a title long recognized as
valid, there may be a presumption of citizenship in the absence of proof
by the record. ·$Sueh cases are referred to in Dryden v. Swinburne, supra.
But no rule of that kind can be applied in a case where complainantfs
right has been contested from the very hour that it accrued.
Other questions presented inthe record have not been considered. On
the ground that the citizenship of William J. Wood, or a declaration by
i him of his intention to become a citizen, is not sufficiently shown, the
motionffor a receiver is denied.. t * ·
. · ' r · . . I BoARDMAN v. Bmzzann et al. , —
_ (027rcui¢ Oqurt,   D. Ima, (Z D. August 30, 1888.) ,
Pumnnr-Wnrrr Auomrrs T0—MONE¥ m Hamas or Aeniwr. I
Defendant applied to O., to rocure him a loan to be used in paying a mort--
¤ _ gage held_ by plaintiff. The loan wassecured and embezzled by C., butde-,
endant did not know when he recmved the money, and never expressly d1-
— rected him to apply it to the mortgage.` 0. was plaintiifs agent to collect the
1 interest and principal of the mortgage: Held, that defendant had made noap-
I plication of the money, and that its receipt by G. was not a payment of the
mortgage. ‘ p
In Equity. -Bill to foreclose mortgage on realty. On final hearing.
_ This is is bill to foreclose a mortgage on real estate, brought by William
Boardman against Harrison Blizzard, owner of the real estate, and Warren
Gifford, a ju·nior’i’ncumbrancer. ·
i Kaujfnwn do Guernsey. for complainant.
s V H; McNeil and D. H Ettien, for defendants. V “
` `Snnus, J. ‘ On the 25th day of July, 1879, the defendant Harrison
_ Blizzard, through Hugh R. Creighton, bf‘Des Moines, Iowa, negotiated a