EUEBaBD P. BELLEW. iiT �S third party, though ignorant of the conveyance wlien made, may subsequently accept it, and his title will relate back to the date of the conveyance, unleas an intervening levy of at- tachment or execution may have defeated it. Harrison t. Trustee», etc., 12 Mass. 466; Hatch v. Hatch, 9 Mass. 307; Fosterv. Mansfield, 3 Met. 412; Doe v. Knight, 5 Bam. & Cres. 632, (671;) Hedgev. Drew, 12 Pick. 141. �We cannot in this case presume, in the absence of proof, tbat defendants, at no time during nearly four years that elapsed between the conveyance to them and the commence- ment of this suit, 'were made aware of, and assented to and accepted, the grant. Especially is this the case, in view of the allegation in the answer that the defendants have held, owned, controlled, and managed the farm ever sinoe the con- veyance, and that the only occupancy has been by their ten- ants, and for their sole and exclusive use. This is equiva- lent to an allegation that the conveyance was accepted by the grantees when made, and it must be overcome by proof on the part of plaintiff. �The decree of the district court, dismissing the bill, is affirmed. ���HtJBBABD ». Beliiew and others. �[Oireuit Court, W. D. Wi»eon»m, , 1880.) �JtTRisDicnoN — iDENTiTT op OoNTBOVKiisT. — A suU for the strlct foro- closure of a contract relating to real estate, hdd, under the circum- stances of this case, to involve a different controversy from a suit to foreciose certain liens upon s part of such property. �Bame — State ahd Federai. CtotmT.— In such case the tngtltntîon of the suit to foreciose the contract in a state court would not subse- quently deprive a federal court of jurisdiction oî a suit to foreciose the liens upon a part of the property. �Petition to Dismîss Case. �J. A. Anderson and Vilas d Bryanf,, for complaînant. �Sloan, Stevem e Morris, for defendant B. J. Stevena. ����
