Opinion of the Court. Barron, 83 Illinois, 365; Carson v. Railway Co., 88 Tennessee, 646; Couley v. Chilcote, 25 Ohio St. 320; Albrecht v. Treitschke, 17 Nebraska, 205; O'Connor v. Walter, 37 Nebraska, 267; Chicago, Burlington &c. Railroad v. Moore, 31 Nebraska, 629; Moore v. Chicago, Rock Island &c. Railroad, 43 Iowa, 385; Broadstreet v. Clark, D. & C. M. & St. Paul Railroad, Garnishee, 65 Iowa, 670; Stevens v. Brown, 5 West Virginia, 450. See also Bank of United States v. Donnally, 8 Pet. 361; Wilcox v. Hunt, 13 Pet. 378; Townsend v. Jemison, 9 How. 407; Walworth v. Harris, 129 U. S. 365; Penfield v. Chesapeake, Ohio &c. Railroad, 134 U. S. 351. As to the extent to which lex fori governs, see Conflict of Laws, 571 et seq. There are cases for and cases against the proposition that it is the duty of a garnishee to notify the defendant, his creditor, of the pendency of the proceedings, and also to make the defence of exemption, or he will be precluded from claiming the proceedings in defence of an action against himself. We need not comment on the cases or reconcile them, as such notice was given and the defence was made. The plaintiff in error did all it could and submitted only to the demands of the law. In Broadstreet v. Clark, 65 Iowa, 670, the Supreme Court of the State decided that exemption laws pertained to the remedy and were not a defence in that State. This ruling is repeated in Willard v. Sturm, 98 Iowa, 555, and applied to the proceedings in garnishment now under review. It follows from these views that the Iowa court had jurisdiction, and that the Kansas courts did not give to the proceedings in Iowa the faith and credit they had there, and were hence entitled to in Kansas. The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for fur ther proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. DAVID CAMPBELL. No. 235. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. Submitted with No. 236 on the same brief. Syllabus. MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA: The facts of this case are substantially the same as in No. 236, except as to the amount involved, and the court in which the proceedings in attachment were commenced, and The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. DAVIS v. COBLENS. ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. No. 246. Argued April 18, 19, 1899. - Decided May 22, 1899. In this action of ejectment, the evidence of adverse possession contained in the bill of exceptions, and set forth in the opinion of this court, is sufficient to justify the action of the trial court in submitting the question to the jury. By the terms of the statute in force in the District of Columbia, the time of limitation of this action commenced to run against Lucy T. Davis, one of the plaintiffs in error, on the death of her mother, and as her mother's death took place more than ten years after the cause of action accrued, the term against the plaintiff in error expired in ten years after it accrued, and no disability on her part arrested its running. It is the general practice to permit tenants in common to sue jointly or separately in ejectment; but if they sue jointly it is with the risk of the failure of all, if one of them fail to make out a title or right to possession. When a cross-examination is directed to matters not inquired about in the principal examination, its course and extent are very largely subject to the control of the court in the exercise of a sound discretion, and the exercise of that discretion is not reviewable on a writ of error. The plaintiff requested the following instruction: "The jury are instructed that there is no testimony in this case tending to rebut the testimony of the witness John H. Walter that he never conveyed lot 10, in controversy in this case, to any person other than the conveyance by the deed to plaintiffs Charles M. N. Latimer, Lucy T. Davis and others, and the jury would not be justified in finding to the contrary." The court struck out the words in italics, and inserted instead, "and the weight to be given his testimony is a proper question for the jury." Held that this was not error. THE statement of the case will be found in the opinion of the court. Opinion of the Court. Mr. Franklin II. Mackey for plaintiffs in error. Mr. W. Mosby Williams was on his brief. Mr. J. J. Darlington for defendants in error. Mr. W. H. Sholes was on his brief. MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA delivered the opinion of the court. This is an action of ejectment brought by the plaintiffs in error and one Charles M. N. Latimer against the defendants in error for ninety-nine one-hundredths (%) undivided part of original lot ten (10), in square 1031, in the city of Washington, D. C. The declaration was in the usual form, and defendants pleaded not guilty, on which issue was joined. The plaintiffs derive title from Richard Young as heirs at law or grantees of heirs at law. The defendants claim by adverse possession under claim of title under an execution sale upon a judgment recovered against said Richard Young some time in the year 1826. The case was tried by a jury. Before the case was submitted leave was granted to amend the declaration by striking out plaintiffs Charles M. N. Latimer and William W. Boarman. The verdict was for defendants. And after a motion for new trial was made and denied, judgment was entered in accordance therewith. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, where the judgment was affirmed, and the case was brought here. There are eleven assignments of error in plaintiffs' brief. All but three relate to instructions given or refused or modified concerning adverse possession. The plaintiffs contended for or objected to instructions which submitted the question of adverse possession to the jury. The other assignments of error will be noted hereafter. 1. The evidence of adverse possession contained in the bill of exceptions is as follows: "The defendants thereupon further offered evidence tending to prove that on March 8, 1875, Isaac P. Childs, and Opinion of the Court. grantee of the whole of square 1031 under a deed from Alexander R. Shepherd, bearing date the 22d day of February, 1875, the same being one of the chain of conveyances offered in evidence by the plaintiffs as tending to show a common. source of title, took possession of the whole of said square, converted it into a brick yard, and continued to hold and use it as such, openly, notoriously, exclusively, continuously, and in a manner hostile to all the world, until January, 1892, when he and his immediate grantees sold and conveyed the said square as an entirety to the defendants for sixty-seven thousand dollars, of which thirty thousand was paid in cash and thirty-seven thousand dollars, deferred purchase money, was secured upon the ground by a deed of trust, upon which the defendants have ever since paid the interest; that by the terms of the sale said Childs & Sons were to be allowed until February, 1893, to remove from said square; that they continued in occupation and possession of the whole of said square under said defendants, paying rent therefor down to the month of October, 1893, with the consent of said defendants, and that they held said square for some time after October without the consent of the defendants, but not disputing their title, being tenants holding over; that they removed the greater part of their effects from said square in the late fall or early winter of 1893-'4, but did not remove entirely until about the month of May, 1895; that the first structure placed by them on the square when they took possession in 1875 were two or more brick kilns erected on lot 10, and that these kilns were the last from which the bricks were removed when they left; that these bricks were in process of removal along during the winter of 1893–4, and that a part of the machinery used by them in the making of brick, namely, two large rollers, with which the clay was crushed before being made into brick, were not removed until May, 1895; that these rollers and some machinery were hauled away in two four-horse wagons as late as about May 20, 1895; that the machine house was located on the north part of lot 1, in said square, at or about a point indicated by the witness Charles Childs on a plat of the square exhibited to VOL. CLXXIV-46 Opinion of the Court. the jury, and that the rollers and machinery were north of the machine house; and on cross-examination in regard thereto the said Charles Childs testified as follows: "I don't know but what the rollers might have been on lot 10. The machine house stood right in here (indicating), and the rollers might have been on lot 10.' "The defendants further offered testimony tending to show that in November, 1893, the defendant caused four signs to be posted, each about four feet square, to the effect that the entire square was for sale or rent on application to them, one at each corner of the square, one of them being located on lot 10; that some of the old bricks were left on the ground, which the witness thought Childs & Sons abandoned, but they did not charge defendants for them, which were suitable for use in building, and were still there; that defendants made no use of them, but that witness thought they would have used them if they had gone into building operations; that either in the latter part of March or the first part of April, 1894, the defendants rented the entire square to one John A. Downing, who rented it for the purpose of converting it into a base ball park, but did not use it for that purpose; that he occupied the house which was on lot 7 for a dairy lunch and sublet a portion of said house for a barber shop; that the acts he did in reference to the occupation of the vacant ground in that square were as follows: That he prevented various parties from depositing tools, tool boxes and railroad iron on the square, though none was attempted to be deposited on lot 10; that on the said square there were a couple of holes where the brick kilns had existed, and that there are the foundations of some kilns built of brick still there, and that the said Downing remained as such tenant in occupation of the said square, as aforesaid until June, 1895, when he sold his dairy lunch to a Mrs. Schulz, who took possession the same day; that after Isaac Childs & Sons left the square, which was in the winter of 1893-'4, perhaps along in November, December, January and February, they sold certain brick kilns, some of which were on lot 10, to James D. Childs, who in turn sold them to others, by whom they were taken away; that said James D. Childs did |