Opinion of the Court. thus to shift a burden upon this court which none of the judges below will have any share in discharging. On the contrary, the Chief Justice went on to say: "But they must be cases sanctioned by the judgment of one of the judges of this court, in his circuit. A loose practice in this respect might render this court substantially a court for the original decision of all causes of importance; when the Constitution and the laws intended to make it altogether appellate in its character; except in the few cases of original jurisdiction enumerated in the Constitution." In that case this court held that it had no jurisdiction, by reason of the irregularity in the proceedings of the Circuit Court, and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings according to law. And in later cases brought up by certificate of division of opinion, this court has steadfastly declined to answer questions not certified in accordance with the spirit, as well as the letter, of the statutes upon that subject. Webster v. Cooper, 10 How. 54; Railroad Co. v. White, 101 U. S. 98; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426. It is true that there are cases in the books, in which appeals from judgments of the Court of Claims, appearing to have been rendered pro forma, but no objection being taken on that ground, have been considered and decided upon the merits. Twenty Per Cent Cases, 20 Wall. 179, 181, and 9 C. Cl. 103, 105, 302, 314; United States v. Martin, 94 U. S. 400, and 10 C. l. 276; United States v. Driscoll, 96 U. S. 421, and 13 C. Cl. 15, 40; United States v. Fisher, 109 U. S. 143, and 15 C. Cl. 323. But in the case at bar, the irregularity of the action of the Court of Claims has been objected to by the Attorney General in behalf of the United States, and cannot be passed over. Judgment reversed, and case remanded to the Court of Claims for further proceedings according to law. Statement of the Case. SABARIEGO v. MAVERICK. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. Argued November 11, 14, 1887. Decided January 23, 1888. When a government officer, acting under authority of law and in accordance with its forms, conveys to an individual a tract of land as land of the government, the deed will pass only such title as the government has therein; and there is no presumption of law that it is a valid title. Under the provisions of Spanish law in force in Mexico in 1814-1817, confiscation of property as a punishment for the crime of treason could only be effected by regular judicial proceedings; and, it being once declared, the property remained subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the intendants, both in ordering sale and in taking cognizance of controversies raised concerning it. There is no legal presumption in favor of jurisdiction in proceedings not according to the common course of justice; but the policy of the law requires the facts conferring it to be proved by direct evidence of a formal character. The facts that Spanish public officers seized a tract of land in Mexico as confiscated for the treason of its owner, and that after taking regular and appropriate steps for its sale they proceeded to sell it and to make conveyance of it by instruments reciting these facts and accompanied by certificates of the oflicers who took part in the transaction that the property had been so confiscated, raise no presumption, under the law of any civilized State, that any judicial proceedings were taken against the owner to find him guilty of treason, or to confiscate his property for that offence. To entitle a plaintiff to recover lands by virtue of prior possession, in an action brought against an intruder, a wrongdoer, or a persor subsequently entering without right, it must appear that the possession was in the first instance under color of right, and that it has been continuous and without abardonment; or, if lost, that there was an animus revertendi. TRESPASS to try title. The following is the case, as stated by the court. This is an action of trespass to try title, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Texas by Pilar Garcia de Sabariego and her husband Manuel, citizens of Mexico, against Maverick and others, citizens of Texas, to recover a certain tract of land lying in the city of San Antonio, Texas. She claimed the property as the sole Statement of the Case. heir of her deceased father, Francisco Garcia, and of her deceased mother, Gertrudes Barrera de Garcia, both of whom it was alleged died seized and possessed of the said land. The different defendants filed pleas of not guilty, the statute of limitations, alienage of the plaintiffs, &c. On the trial, as shown by the bill of exceptions, the plaintiffs read in evidence certain partition proceedings, showing title in one Miguel Losoya to the suerte or tract claimed in the suit by a grant from the King of Spain. The plaintiffs next offered in evidence certain documents, the originals being in Spanish, and translations of which into English are set out, and a deed from a board of commissioners to Garcia, showing a sale and conveyance of the premises in controversy to him, based, according to the recitals, upon a confiscation of the property of Losoya by the Spanish government in the year 1814. These documents, relating to the confiscation, sale, and conveyance of the property in controversy, were admitted in evidence, the court stating at the time that, in its opinion, they did not show any decree or adjudication of confiscation sufficient to warrant the sale, and that, unless the plaintiffs could show some further proceedings upon which to base the action of the officers in the premises, the said proceedings constituted no legal confiscation and passed no title to the purchaser at said sale. Counsel for the plaintiffs then stated to the court that they were unable to offer in evidence any further or other confiscation decree or proceedings than those already offered and read in evidence. Counsel for the plaintiffs then offered other testimony in depositions, "but the court, upon the objection of defendants, refused to allow the depositions aforesaid, or any part of them, to be read, and refused to permit plaintiffs to make any of the proofs aforesaid upon the ground that the said confiscation proceedings were insufficient to pass title of any character, and that no title of any character was thereby passed to or vested in said Garcia, and that this was fatal to plaintiffs' right of recovery, and that all the said evidence read as well as that proposed to be offered showed no title in plaintiffs which would warrant a verdict and judgment in their favor." Statement of the Case. The court thereupon directed a verdict for the defendants, which was rendered, and judgment thereon accordingly, to reverse which this writ of error is prosecuted. The document relating to the sale and conveyance of the premises in dispute are as follows: The first is entitled: "The governor of the province of Texas returns statements of property confiscated from the rebels in Bexar, and of the condition thereof, and asks whether some of it may be sold." Then follows a list of the names of the parties and a general description of the property of each, extended into a column of valuations. In this list appears the name of Miguel Losoya; the property described, one-half dula of water; extended 100. This list is preceded by the following heading: "Statement of property confiscated from the rebels of this city by the order of the commanding general, Don Joaquin de Arredondo, as shown by the statement and inventory made by Captain Don Fran'co del Prado y Arce on the 27th of October, 1814, which I copy, and to which I refer myself, viz." It is dated Bexar, the 27th of October, 1814, and signed F'co del Prado y Arce, Juan Fran'co de Collantes. Then follows: "General inventory and copy of property belonging to the king, and confiscated from the insurgents of this province, which 1 received from my predecessor, Lieutenant Don Juan Antonio Padilla, and is now in existence, viz." In this list also appears Miguel Losoya's one-half dula of water. Then follows, under the head of remarks, the following: All the other confiscated property appearing in the statement made by Don Francisco del Prado as above, in the copy of the statement of existing property which I have received from my predecessor, Lieutenant Don Antonio Padilla, now wanting, shall be accounted for by my predecessor in office, since I have had no knowledge of it; but I will be accountable for the property which I received from said Padilla, as appears in this last statement. "Bexar, 19th of September, 1817. "JUAN FRAN'CO DE COLLANTES." Statement of the Case. On the same document is the following endorsement: "[On margin :] On the 20th inst. receipt was acknowledged, stating that he shall be advised of the result. "There are in this city several houses sequestered from the insurgents who took part in the revolution of this province, which took place in the past year, 1811, but all of them are so deteriorated that they are becoming wholly unserviceable, having never been repaired, owing to want of funds for that purpose, a few of them having been inhabited by persons connected with the army, who, considering their well-known straitened circumstances, had means to pay rent only. The result is that, although at that time they were appraised by commissioners appointed for that purpose, according to their inventory existing in these archives, in amounts which were then adequate, they cannot now be worth one-half of what they were then, and some of them may not be worth onethird; and, considering that their ruinous condition increases from day to day, I hope that your lordship will please tell me whether some of them may be sold in case that purchasers be found, and whether, owing to the cause above specified, some rebate may be made on the appraised value, considering that at this moment a buyer comes before me of a house appraised at three hundred and eighty dollars, but, inasmuch as the price does not suit him, he asks for some rebate on it, said house being wholly unserviceable. In these terms, and considering that this business is under the authority of the intendancy, I shall act according to the instructions which your lordship may give on the subject. God keep you many years. "Bexar, September 14, 1817. "ANTONIO MARTINEZ. "To the Intendant of San Luis Potosi. "One 'cuartillo.' "Fourth stamp: 'One cuartillo.' For the years eighteen hundred and fourteen and fifteen. "San Luis Potosi, the 20th of October, 1817. "Let the official communication of the governor of the province of Texas, and inventory and statements thereto t |