nesses in arriving at the depreciation of the value of the property, yet they were not necessarily elements of damage upon which an estimate might be separately based by a jury. No one will contend but that property so situated would be less valuable and less desirable than if otherwise located, and in arriving at the correct measure of damages, according to the method of proof as stated in that case, they were all proper to be considered. See also Columbus, etc., Ry. Co. v. Gardner, 45 Ohio St. 309 (13 N. E. Rep. 69). The real question involved is as to the depreciation of the market value of the property, and it is competent to prove any fact by which such depreciation may be established. We find no error, and the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

The other Judges concur.

Judgment affirmed.

NOTE. A railroad company is liable for damages resulting from its altering the grade of a street, Sheehy v. Kansas City Cable Ry. Co., 94 Mo. 574 (7 S. W. Rep. 579; 4 Am. St. Rep. 396); Shealy v. Chicago, Madison & N. R. R., 77 Wis. 653 (46 N. W. Rep. 887). Compare Trustees of the First Cong. Ch. & Soc. of Oskosh v. Milwaukee and Lake Winnebago R. R., 77 Wis. 158 (45 N. W. Rep. 1086). The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania upon facts very similar to those of the principal case, reach just the opposite conclusion. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. v. Lippincott, 116 Pa. St. 472 (9 Atl. Rep. 871; 2 Am. St. Rep. 618).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.

SLATER V. SCHACK.

(41 Minn. 269.)

Acknowledgments of deeds-Legal holiday. A deed may be acknowledged on the 22nd day of Febuary, although a statute prohibits "public business and the service of civil process upon that day."

Sec. 19.

Acknowledgment

of deeds-Legal

holidays. Action in the district court for Hennepin county, to determine the adverse claim of defendant to a vacant lot in Min

neapolis. Plaintiff claimed title under a deed executed and delivered to him February 21, 1889, and recorded February 26, 1889. Defendant claimed a lien upon the premises under a mortgage for $150, executed, acknowledged, and delivered to him on the 22nd day of February, 1889, by plaintiff's grantor, and recorded on February 23, 1889, defendant at the time of taking his mortgage having no notice of plaintiff's deed. Plaintiff appeals from an order by Hooker J., overruling his demurrer to the answer. By the Court. Should we give to Gen. St. 1878, c. 124. sec. 1, the construction demanded by the appellant here, it would ren der the anniversary mentioned a day upon which no business of any character could lawfully be transacted, except that which might be public, and then in case of necessity only. By expressly prohibiting public business and the service of civil process upon that day it is evident that the legislators, when declaring the 22d of February a holiday, did not intend to make it dies non juridicus. It may be true that a notary is a public officer, but in taking an acknowledgment of the execution of a deed he is simply engaged in private business. Order affirmed.

NOTE. In Wisconsin the 22nd day of February is a legal holiday; and under the statute of that state providing that no court shall be opened or transact any business on "any legal holiday, unless it be for the purpose of instructing or discharging a jury, or of receiving a verdict, and rendering a judgment thereon," it was held that depositions taken in another state on the 22nd of February were not for that reason inadmissible in evidence, Green v. Walker, 73 Wis. 548 (41 N. W. Rep. 534); and the approval of the bond of an assignee for the benefit of creditors by a court commissioner on a legal holiday is valid, Spalding & Bros. v. Bernhard, 76 Wis. 368 (44 N. W. Rep. 643). A trial is not invalid because held on February 22nd, although the statute makes that day a legal holiday, Pfister v. State, 84 Ala. 432 (4. So. Rep. 395). A defendant by answering, may waive his right to object to the suit being commenced on a legal holiday, contrary to the provisions of the statute, Ullman v. Verne, 68 Tex. 414 (4 S. W. Rep. 548). A deed acknowledged on Sunday is not, for that reason, void. Lu cas v. Larkin, 1 Pick. (Tenn.) 355 (3 S. W. Rep. 647).

ADVERSE POSSESSION.

TOURTELOTTE V. PEARCE.

(27 Neb. 57.)

Adverse possession-As to what constitutes it. The building of fences, making of other improvements, raising of crops and payment of taxes are such acts of dominion as may constitute adverse possession.

Title passed by adverse possession. By adverse possession, for the statutory period, the occupant acquires such a title as he may have quieted, in a court of equity, against all other claimants.

MAXWELL, J.

Sec 20. Facts stated. This action was brought in the district court of Otoe county to quiet the plaintiff's title to certain real estate and on the trial a decree was entered in his favor. The plaintiff alleges in his petition:

1. That he is the owner in fee simple and in the possession of the following described lots or parcels of land, situate in the county of Otoe, in said state of Nebraska, known as lots numbers one and two in block number thirty-one, in Greggsport, an addition to Nebraska City, according to the recorded plat of said addition; that he has been thus in the undisturbed, peace. able, and adverse possession thereof, and of the whole thereof, for the period of seventeen years last past, and especially adverse to the claims of the said defendants above named, and of each of them.

2. That the said defendant, Milton Fornia, claims to have some title to said described premises by virtue of a certain deed or deeds from one Thomas B. Stevenson to him, but that neither the said Stevenson, nor any of his grantors, nor the said defendant Fornia, ever had possession of the said premises, or any part thereof; that the said defendant, A. H. Pearce, also claims some title thereto, by virtue of certain deeds to him executed from other parties, but that neither he nor his grantors ever had the possession thereof; that the said defendant Jacob Sichl, has, or claims some title or interest therein, by virtue of certain deeds from one Sarah E. Schoenheit to Richard A. White, and from the said White to the said defendant Jacob Sichl, but that no pos

session has ever been had thereunder by the said Sichl, or either of his grantors; that said deeds are recorded in the office of the clerk of said county of Otoe, and that the same constitute clouds upon the title of this said plaintiff in and to the said premises and injure the market value thereof; that neither of the said defendants will institute an action to determine the legal title to the said premises, and that this plaintiff is without remedy in the premises; that the plaintiff has made lasting and valuable improvements thereon.

"Wherefore this said plaintiff prays for a decree of this honorable court in his favor, and against the said defendants, quieting his title in and to said described lots, against the claims and demands of the said defendants and each of them; that the cloud caused by the record of the several deeds to the several defendants, in the office of the clerk of said county, may be removed, and the same and each of them decreed to be no cloud upon the title of the said plaintiff in and to said premises; that the said defendants and each of them may be decreed to have no title in or to said described lots, or to either of them, but that the title thereto may be decreed to be in this plaintiff, discharged of all claim in law or in equity of the claims or demands of the said defendants or of either of them; that the said defendants and each of them may be perpetually enjoined and forbidden from beginning or prosecuting any suit at law or in equity against this plaintiff or his grantees to recover the possession thereof, or any part thereof, and may be perpetually forbidden and enjoined from setting up any claims or claiming any interest or estate therein adverse to the title of this said plaintiff, or from disturbing him and his said grantees in the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of the said premises, or any part thereof, and for such other or further order or relief in the premises as equity and good conscience may require, the circumstances of this case considered, and for costs of suit.

"Plaintiff asks the following deeds declared void, as hereinbefore stated: From Thomas B. Stevenson to Milton Fornia, dated April 13, 1870, recorded in book 'T' of deeds at page 408; from John E. Shepherd to the defendant Pearce, June 25, 1874, and recorded in book 'Z' of deeds at page 228; from Sarah E. Schoenheit to R. A. White et al., dated October 24, 1887."

The defendant Sichl answered the petition in substance, de

nying the allegations thereof, and alleging that he has the legal title to said lots, and that the plaintiff's claim is a cloud on the same, and praying for affirmative relief. On the trial of the cause

a decree was rendered against Sichl as follows:

"Now on

Sec. 21. Judgment of the court below. this day this cause came on to be heard upon the pleadings and proof adduced by the several parties upon the issues joined between the said plaintiff and the said defendant, Jacob Sichl; and the court, having duly considered the same and listened to the arguments of counsel, and being well advised in the premises, doth find the issues so as aforesaid joined between the said plaintiff and the said defendant, Jacob Sichl, in favor of the plaintiff, and against the said defendant.

"And the court finds that the said plaintiff has been in the undisturbed, peaceable, notorious, open, and adverse possession of the premises described in the petition, to-wit, lots numbered one and two in block numbered thirty-one, in Greggsport, an addition to Nebraska City, in said county of Otoe, for more than ten years last past, before the commencement of this action, claiming to own the same as against all the world, and especially as against the said defendants herein, and against the claims of the said defendants, Jacob Sichl, and that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree quieting his said title as prayed in his said petition herein.

"It is therefore considered, adjudged, and decreed by the court in said cause, that the title and possession of the said plaintiff in and to the said premises, to-wit, lots numbered one and two in block numbered thirty-one, in Greggsport, an addition to Nebraska City, in said county of Otoe, be and the same is hereby forever settled and quieted in the plaintiff as against all claims or demands in law or in equity by the said defendant, Jacob Sichl, and those to claim or claiming by, through, or under him.

"That the deeds from Sarah E. Schoenheit to R. A. White et al., dated October 24, 1887, recorded in book of deeds No. 23 of the records of Otoe county, Nebraska, at page 188; the deed from the said R. A. White et al., to the defendant, Jacob Sichl, dated November 8, 1887, and recorded in the records of said county at page 487 of book 22 of deeds, and all other deeds in said chain of title be, and the same are hereby, canceled and removed as clouds upon the title of the said plaintiff in and to said described premises.