Ejectment—Writ of Restitution—Authority of gnERiFF.—Under a writ of restitution issued upon a judgment for the plaintiff in an action of ejectment, the sheriff is authorized to remove from the land the defendants and all persons found thereon, whose possession was derived under the defendants or either of them.

Id.—Presumption as to Possession Under Defendants—Burden of Proof—Possession Under 8tranger.—The burden of proof is upon all persons coming into possession subsequent to the commencement of the action of ejectment to show affirmatively that their possession is rightful, and under a title not determined in the action, and was not taken by collusion with the defendants: and, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, it will be presumed that they came in under the defendants. This presumption is not overthrown by showing that they came in under a stranger to the action, unless it is also shown that such stranger was in possession at or prior to the commencement of the action.

Id.—Injunction Against Execution oe Writ—Absence of Title— Collusive Entry.—An injunction cannot be maintained to enjoin the execution of the writ of restitution, in favor of a possessor claiming under a deed from a third person dated prior to the commencement of the action of ejectment, where it appears that such third person had no title to the premises, and merely had a conveyance from a defendant in ejectment after he had parted with his rights, and which was intended as a security for indebtedness; and that the entry of the plaintiff in the injunction suit, after the commencement of the action of ejectment, was by collusion with the defendant in that action, with intent to deprive the plaintiff therein of the fruits of his judgment.

Id.—Evidence—Possession of Grantor—Impeachment—Where the defendant in the ejectment suit testified for the plaintiff in the injunction suit that he had delivered the possession of the premises to the plaintiff’s grantor prior to the commencement of the ejectment suit, he may be impeached by proof that on the trial of the ejectment suit he testified that he himself had been in possession of the premises for about two years under a lease from the city, which lease described the premises in controversy, and was the only lease he had taken from the city.

Id—Advisory Verdict of Jury—Instructions not Subject to Exception.—In an equitable action for an injunction, the verdict of a jury is merely advisory; and though the court, in its findings of fact, adopts the conclusion of the jury, its instructions to the jury are not the subject of an exception.