ants in common of land the fact that presumption of a deed arising from adverse possession cannot prevail against the infants, cannot be interposed by the other tenants in common. Garrett v. Weinberg, 48 S. C. 28 (26 S. E. Rep. 3). The court say: "Statutes of limitations and presumptions arising from lapse of time are very different in their natures, and we see no reason why they both may not exist at the same time, even when the statute prescribes twenty years as the time necessary to sustain the defense of adverse possession. Wadsworthville v. McCully, 11 Rich. Law 430; Trustees v. Jennings, 40 S. C. 183 (18 S. E. Rep. 257, 891; 42 Am. St. Rep. 854).” Particular evidence held sufficient to show an adverse holding by cotenants. Hutson v. Hutson, 139 Mo. 229 (40 S. W. Rep. 886). See Tenants in common. Sec. 78. Vendor and vendee-Mortgagor and mortgagee--Husband and wife. Possession by a vendee under a land contract, is not adverse until he has either complied with its terms, or in some way given notice to his vendor or his assignee, that he claims to hold in hostility thereto. Burke v. Douglass, 115 Mich. 197 (73 N. W. Rep. 133). Citing, In re Department of Public Parks, 73 N. Y. 566; Heermans v. Schmaltz, 7 Fed. 577; Furlong v. Garrett, 44 Wis. 112; Brown v. King, 5 Metc. (Mass.) 173; Miller v Larson, 17 Wis. 624; Adams v. Fullam, 43 Vt. 592; 1 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d Ed.) 799. One who holds under an assignment of a contract for the purchase of land, does not hold adversely to the vendor. Laraway v. Zenor, 100 Ia. 181 (69 N. W. Rep. 416). The possession of land under an executory contract of purchase is not adverse to the vendor so long. as the purchase money is not paid. Peadro v. Carriker, 168 Ill. 570 (48 N. E, Rep. 102). A donee of lands who goes into possession under claim of ownership begins an adverse possession, as against his donor. Schafer v. Hauser, 111 Mich. 622 (70 N. W. Rep. 136; 66 Am. St. Rep. 403; 35 L. R. A. 835). Under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 346, it is held that where a grantor in an absolute deed, claimed by him to be a mortgage, fails to bring any action against his grantee for a period of five years after such grantee has asserted title in himself and otherwise manifested an adverse holding, he loses all remedy whether the debt or obligation secured by the mortgage has been paid or not. Peshine v. Ord, 119 Cal. 311 (51 Pac. Rep. 536; 63 Am. St. Rep. 131). A husband continuing in possession of his wife's land after divorce from her will be considered as holding adversely to her, and she has the burden of showing that he holds in recognition of her title. Ferring v. Fleisch(39 S. W. Rep. 19). A husband's possession of his wife's land during the continuance of the marital relation, will not be treated as adverse. Watt v. Watt, man, Tenn. Ky. (39 S. W. Rep. 48). Where a husband executes an invalid deed to his wife of land upon which they are both living, the right of possession passes to the wife and he does not acquire adverse possession by paying the taxes on the premises. Reagle v. Reag le, 179 Pa. St.89 (36 Atl. Rep. 191). Sec. 79. Sale of land in the adverse possession of another. A purchaser at a foreclosure sale, had under a decree foreclosing a mortgage executed by a mortgagor, while the land was in the adverse possession of another, who was not made a party to the proceedings to foreclose, acquires no title as against such adverse claimant. Probst v. Bush, 115 Ala. 495 (22 So. Rep. 445). In Kentucky, a conveyance of Lands held adversely by another is void. Farmer v. Farmer, Ky. (39 S. W. Rep. 706). Ky. Stat. 1894, § 210, providing "that all sales or conveyances, including those made under execution, of any lands or pretended right or title to same, of which any person at the time of such sale, contract or conveyance had adverse possession, shall be null and void," is held not to apply to a sale by order of a court of equity. Ward v. Edge, 100 Ky. 757 (39 S. W. Rep. 440). Merely cutting and removing timber at intervals is not of itself such possession as will avoid a deed for champerty. Rice v. West, Ky. (42 S. W. Rep. 116). Nor is possession by mere accidental inclosure sufficient. McSpadden v. Starrs Mountain Iron Co., Tenn. (42 S. W. Rep. 497). Mill. & V. Tenn. Code, §§ 2445, 2449, construed and applied -champertous conveyance. Curry v. Williams, Tenn. (38 S. W. Rep. 278). N. Dak. Comp. Laws, § 3303, declaring every grant of real property void "if at the time of the delivery thereof such real property is in the actual posses sion of a person claiming under a title adverse to that of the grantor," has no application where the party in possession relies only upon naked possession, which, upon his own showing, has not continued for sufficient time to ripen into title by prescription under the statute. The possession must be by one claiming under a title. Kreuger v. Schultz, 6 N. Dak. 310 (70 N. W. Rep. 269). In South Dakota, it is provided by statute that one claiming right or title to lands may convey his interest to another although the lands are adversely held by a third party, and such grantee may maintain any action which his grantor could have maintained. Laws 1899, p. 144. ALIENS. EPITOME OF CASES. Sec. 80. Rights of aliens as to real estate-Statutes construed. The provisions of a state statute denying aliens the right to take real estate by inheritance in such state will be construed in subservience to a stipulation in a treaty between the federal government and a foreign country permitting the subjects of the latter to inherit real estate in the United States. The federal government has power to make such a stipulation in a treaty and it does not alter the laws of descent of the state affected by it so as to render them unconstitutional, nor is it an infringement of the right of the state to control its internal policy. Opel v. Shoup, 100 Ia. 407 (69 N. W. Rep. 560; 37 L. R. A. 583), construing and applying Acts 22nd Gen. Assem. ch. 85 with reference to the treaty between the United States and the king of Bavaria; Claflin v. Claflin, 102 Ia. 744 (71 N. W. Rep. 210); Doehrel v. Hillmer, 102 Ia. 169 (71 N. W. Rep. 204), construing and applying the same statute with reference to the treaty between the United States and Prussia; Adams v. Akerlund, 168 Ill. 632 (48 N. E. Rep. 454), construing and applying the Illinois Laws of 1887, p. 5, with reference to the treaties between the United States and Sweden. Construing Iowa Acts 22nd Gen. Assem, ch. 85 (for provisions of which see Ballards' Law Real Property, Vol. V, § 38), it is held that an alien taking land under a will takes by purchase. Doehrel v. Hillmer, 102 Ia. 169 (71 N. W. Rep. 204). Ill. Laws, 1887, p. 5; 1891, p. 3, construed and applied-power of aliens to hold and convey lands. DeGraff v. Went, 164 Ill. 485 (45 N. E. Rep. 1075). Conn. Gen. Stat, § 15 applied-inheritance by an alien. Crosgrove v. Crosgrove, 69 Conn. 416 (38 Atl. Rep. 219). Burns' Ind. Rev. Stat. (1894) §§ 3332, 3333-ownership of lands by aliens —amended, Ind. Laws 1899, p. 377. Idaho has a new statute as to the rights of aliens and alien corporations to acquire real estate. Laws 1899, p. 70. See. 81. Power of alien corporations to acquire real estate. Washington Const. art. 2, § 33 (given effect by Gen. Stat. § 1524), provides as follows: "The ownership of lands by aliens other than those who in good faith have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States is prohibited in this state, except where acquired by inheritance, under mortgage or in good faith in the ordinary course of justice in the collection of debts; and all conveyances of land hereafter made to any alien directly, or in trust for such alien, shall be void; Provided, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to lands containing valuable deposits of minerals, metals, iron, coal or fire-clay, and the necessary lands for mills and machinery to be used in the development thereof and the manufacture of the products therefrom. Every corporation, the majority of the capital stock of which is owned. by aliens, shall be considered an alien for the purposes of this prohibition." Construing this provision, it is held that an alien corporation which has taken a mortgage on lands to secure a loan made by it may acquire title thereto by taking a conveyance of such lands directly from the mortgagor in satisfaction of the debt, without foreclosure; and only the state can question the validity of a title claimed to have been acquired in violation of the statute. Dunbar J., dissenting. Oregon Mort. Co. v. Carstens, 16 Wash. 165 (47 Pac. Rep. 421; 35 L. R. A. 841). Upon the last point this case is followed in Goon Gan v. Richardson, 16 Wash. 373 (47 Pac. Rep. 762). ASSIGNMENTS FOR CREDITORS. EPITOME OF CASES. Sec. 82. Constitutionality and construction of statutes. Fla. Laws 1889, ch. 3891, regulating assignments for the benefit of creditors, is constitutional. Dorr v. Schmidt, 38 Fla. 354 (21 So. Rep. 279). A statute (Me. Rev. Stat. ch. 70, § 33), providing that an assignment dissolves any attachment made within four months preceding the commencement of the assignment proceedings, does not apply to an attachment issued to the enforcement of a mechanic's lien, the assignee taking the property subject to such liens. Laughlin v. Reed, 89 Me. 226 (36 Atl. Rep. 131). Mont. Comp. Stat., 1887, div. 5, § 226, construed and applied-assignment of a building as personal property-taking possession. Tuttle v. Merchant's Nat. Bank, 19 Mont. 11 (47 Pac. Rep. 203). Pa. Pub. Laws 1847, p. 273, construed and applied-assignments by failing debtors to prefer creditors subject to the law relating to voluntary assignments. Mann v. Wakefield, 179 Pa. St. 398 (36 Atl. Rep. 244). U. S. Rev. Stat. § 5057, construed and applied-statute of limitations against action by assignee. Bowen v. Delaware L. & W. R. Co., 153 N. Y. 476 (47 N. E. Rep. 907; 60 Am. St. Rep. 667). Ohio Rev. Stat. §§ 6343, 6344-conveyances in contemplation of insolvency amended, Laws 1898, p. 290. Sec. 83. Extraterritorial force of assignments and assignment laws. Where a creditor and the assignee do not reside in the state where the assignment is made, and the former participates in proceedings had under the assignment and has placed himself in a position to accept the benefits thereof, he is estopped to question the validity of the assignment, as affecting lands in other states on account of its pot conforming with the requirements of such states as to conveyances, |