Plume

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This was an action of ejectment to recover a lot in the City of Marysville. On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff proved that Covillaud and others, from whom he claimed, were in the year 1849 in possession of a tract of land, lying between the Tuba river and a slough, which was inclosed by a ditch on each side, running from the river to the slough; and had within said inclosure a trading post, a corral and a wheat field. The lot in dispute was not a portion of the wheat field or corral, but was included in the premises thus designated or inclosed by them; their right of possession remaining unquestioned and undisturbed.

This land was afterwards laid out into lots and streets, upon the official map of the City of Marysville, many of which were sold by said Covillaud and others. [96] * There is no pretence of an abandonment of the premises thus inclosed; but evidence that Covillaud continued to assert title and exercise acts of ownership over them.

On the trial of the cause, the Court rendered a judgment of nonsuit, on the ground that the plaintiff had not shown such a possession as entitled him to recover.

At the last term of this Court we…