Appeal from the District Court, Seventh Judicial District, Solano County.

The complaint averred that the plaintiffs had title in fee simple to the demanded premises, and that “said premises were a part of the Rancho Los Putas, commonly called the Vaca and Peña Grant, granted to said Vaca and Peña by the Mexican authorities, and finally confirmed to them by the United States Courts, and duly patented,” etc.

The pleadings were not verified. The answers contained first, a general denial, and the several special defenses.

The plea of the Statute of Limitations was as follows : “For further answer these defendants say that plaintiffs ought not to have or maintain this action against the defendants, because they say that, neither the plaintiffs or either of them, or their ancestor, predecessor or grantor, or either of them, was seized or possessed of the premises in question within five years before the commencement of this action.”

The second special defense referred to in the opinion of the Court was pleaded, in substance, as follows:

And farther answering, these defendants say that they and those under whom they claim entered into possession of the premises unuer a claim of title founded on a conveyance of the said premises, on the 21st day of August, A. D. 1850, and from thence hitherto have and still do continue to occupy a portion of the premises descnoeo in the complaint; that they own and possess a portion of the premises described in the complaint, under and by virtue of a convey once from Vaca and Peña, the original grantees thereof from the xviemiean Government, and that they and those under whom they claim were the bona fide purchasers from the original grantees of so much of the premises in complaint described as is possessed by them; that said purchases were made by them from said Vaca and Peña, the original grantees, for a valuable consideration, duly paid, and were made without notice or knowledge of any claim or title of the plaintiffs, or either of them, or of any other person, to the premises or any part thereof.

The plaintiff Harriet Anderson was the widow of W. Hollingsworth, who bought from Vaca and Peña, and died intestate, before the commencement of this action. The other defendants, except Ross, were his children by said Harriet.

The answer, setting up a former recovery, averred that on the 15th of October, 1858, in the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District in and for Solano County, an action was commenced by the defendant, William J. Dobbins, to recover the portion of the premises described in the complaint of which said Dobbins is in possession; and that said action was for the same cause of action described in the complaint, and was brought against the said Harriet Anderson; that due service of summons was had, and the cause became regularly at issue, and was fully tried, and such proceedings were had therein that the said William J. Dobbins, on the 2d day of February, 1860, duly recovered judgment for the possession of the premises described in the complaint; that such judgment remains in full force.

The plea of improvements made on the premises by defendants was as follows: “Defendants say that they and those under whom they claim have made permanent, lasting, and valuable improvements upon said premises so possessed by them, and that said improvements consist of houses, fruit trees, barns, and other valuable erections, and that the same are of great value, to wit: of the value of twenty thousand dollars, and that the same were made in good faith and under color of title.”

The deed from Yaca, made in 1848, had two subscribing witnesses, and was afterwards proved and recorded.

The plaintiffs appealed.

The other facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.