Haight

— This is an action of ejectment, and one of the defenses to the action is, that the plaintiffs’ ancestor conveyed the demanded premises to the grantor of the defendants. Another defense is, that the action is barred by the statute of limitations. The verdict and judgment were in favor of the defendants, and the plaintiffs appeal from the judgment and order denying their motion for a new trial.

The exceptions relied on here are to certain instructions given, and the refusal to give certain other instructions requested by defendants to be given.

Plaintiff requested the court to instruct the jury that “a forged deed conveys no right, title, or interest; it is absolutely void, and as though never made.” The court refused to give it as requested, but in lieu thereof gave the following: “A forged deed conveys no title, right, or interest; it is absolutely void, and as though never made; except if duly recorded it is constructive notice of that fact.”

The latter clause of this instruction is clearly erroneous, and is inconsistent with another part of the charge, *248 in which the jury were instructed that “no legal effect can be produced upon the rights of the parties by recording a…