Hibberd

— I concur in the judgment, and also in the opinion of Mr. Justice Crockett, except on the point in respect to the admissibility of the testimony of Aughinbaugh to show what was said to him by W. W. Chipman in relation to his deed to E. S. Chipman. It will be admitted by everyone that the delivery of a deed may be verbal, and that it may be made to a stranger for the grantee. In order to give effect to the deed, the better opinion is that it is necessary to show its acceptance by the grantee: 2 Wash, on Real Prop. 580. The defendants were, in my opinion, entitled to prove what the grantor said, in order to show a verbal delivery of the deed to Aughinbaugh for the grantee, without first proving the fact or time of its acceptance' by the latter. Where an ultimate fact is to be established by proof of a series of probative facts, there is no rule of which I am aware requiring proof of the last fact in the series before adducing evidence of the first. The defendants, notwithstanding the exclusion of the evidence of the delivery of the deed, proved that the deed was accepted by the grantee, but after the lien of the Hibberd judgment had attached to the premises in controversy. The…

— If the facts are correctly found by the court, it is manifest the title of the demanded premises is in the plaintiffs. The title having been finally confirmed to Antonio Peralta, and the facts as found showing a regular deraignment by mesne conveyances from Peralta to the plaintiffs, they are clearly entitled to recover on these facts, unless the action is barred by the statute of limitations. But the defendants insist that some of the material facts found by the court are not justified by the evidence. The plaintiffs deraign their title through a judgment, execution sale and sheriff’s deed in the case of Hibberd v. W. W. Chipman and Aughin *556 baugh, and the defendants through a conveyance from said W. W. Chipman to Edward S. Chipman, alleged to have been made prior to the time when the lien of the judgment attached, if there ever was a lien, which is not admitted. The court finds that the.judgment was duly rendered and was duly entered of record and duly docketed on the first day of March, 1855; that an execution in due form was issued on the judgment in proper time, which was levied on the land in contest; that the land was sold by the sheriff under the execution to Hibberd,…