Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/180

166 FEDERAL SEPOETEB. �made in accordance with it, would seem to obvîate ail objec- tions to the cliange, even if the plaintiflf \Tere in a position, as he is not, to contest its validity. �The mortgagea, upon the foreclosnre of which the land was Bold and the grantor of the plaintiff acquired his title, were exe- cuted after thia dedication had become irrevocable, and the purchaser at the mortgage sale tookwhateverrights he acquired in subordination to the interoat of the public, represented since the incorporation of the town by its authorities. �As te the defence that the statute of limitations of the state bas barred the action, it is sufficient to refer to the decisions of the supreme court of California in Hoadley v. The City qf San Francisco, 50 Cal. 265, and Pcople v. Pope, 63 Cal. 437. Acoording to them, no one can acquire by adverse occupation as against the public the right to a street or square dedicated to public uses. The construction given by the supreme court of the state to the local statute is conclusive upon this court. It foUows that the finding of the court upon the issues pre- sented must be for the defendant, and judgment will accord- ingly be entered in its favor. ���Bbooes and others v. FabwellL and others. �(OirauU Court, û. Colorado. October 20, 1880.) �J. Removal — Rbtib-w. — Questions passed upon in a state court cannot be reviewed upon the removal of the cause to the circuit court. �S. Pbactice— Sbbvicb of PaocBSs— Non-Resident. — A party going into another state as a witness, or as a party under proceas of a court, to attend upon the trial of a cause, is exempt from process in such state whilo he is necessarily attending there in respect to such trial. Pa/rk&r v. Uotdikm, 1 Wall. Jr. 269. The Juneau Bank v. MoSpedan, 5 Biss. 64. �, for plaintiffs. �, for defendants. ���Hallett, D. J. Brooks and the Purdy Silver Minîng Com- pany brought suit in the district court of Arapahoe county, ����