DALLES CITY V. MISSIONARY SOCIETY. 357 �1848, because it was not at that date in the actual possession and occupation of the premises ; that such occupation was a condition precedent to the taking eilect of such grant, and therefore it mat- tered not whether the failure of the society to occupy the station in August, 1848, was voluntary, or was caused by the fear of hostile Indians. �6. Patment bt Congbess. �The payment by congress to the missionary society of $20,000, in June, 1860, on account of the reservation of 353 acres of the Dalles mission station in March, 1850, for military purposes, and the loss or destruction of property thereon since 1847, by Oregon volunteers, Indians, or United States troops, did not have the effect to invest the society with the title to such station then or on August 14, 1848 ; nor was it even an admission that the society had any legal right to the premises, but only that it asserted some kind of a claim thereto which it was deemed expedient to extinguish ; nor could congress, in June, 1860, by a direct recognition of a supposed prier grant to the society, aSect the rights of others already acquired in the premises uuder the town-site and donation acts. �James K. Kelly and N. H. Gates, for plaintiffs. �Bu/us Mallory and John G. Cartwright, for defendant. �Deady, D. J. These three suite were commenced on Sep- tember 18, 1877, in the circuit court for the state, in the county of Wasco. The summons was served by publication, �and on September the defendant appeared and had the �cause removed to this court, where they were entered on Jan- uary 30, 1878. On April 9th there was a demurrer filed to each complaint, which was disallowed, and thereupon, bythe direction of the court, on May 2d, the plaintiffs in each suit restated their case in the manner of a formai bill in equity. On August 12th the defendant answered the bills, and on September 20th the plaintiffs filed the general replication. In the course of the proceedings exceptions for impertinence were taken to both the bills and the answers, which were dis- allowed, and the questions raised thereby reserved for consid- eration upon the final hearing. On October 15, 1879, the causes were heard together upon the several bills, answers, replications, and the exhibits and depositions in each, and in No. 390 bo far as they were applicable to the other two. �Before touching the grounds of the controversey between the parties it may be well to state their respective cases, so ��� �
