Opinion of the Court. Stat. 64, c. 142, the appropriation commences in this way: "For pay of seventy-four agents of Indian affairs at the following named agencies, at the rates respectively indicated, namely: At the Warm Springs agency, at one thousand dollars; at the Klamath agency, at one thousand one hundred dollars;" and then follow in like manner the name of each agency, and the salary attached thereto, several of the salaries being in excess of those given by said section 2052. Evidently this change grew out of section 4 of the appropriation act of 1876, 19 Stat. 200: "That hereafter the estimates for appropriations for the Indian service shall be presented in such form as to show the amounts required for each of the agencies in the several States or Territories, and for said States and Territories respectively." This act was passed August 15, 1876, and, apparently, there was not sufficient time before the passage of the appropriation act of 1877, March 3, 1877, to satisfactorily prepare the estimates, and so the form of the legislation of Congress was not changed until 1878. But when changed it was a change indicating that each particular agency was called to the attention of Congress, and the amount which should be paid to the agent at that agency specifically determined. In this connection it is well to note the language used in the appropriation acts to denote the purpose of the appropriation. Thus, in the act of 1878, and subsequent statutes are similar, it is that the "following sums be, and they are hereby, appropriated... for the purpose of paying the current and contingent expenses of the Indian Department;" and immediately thereafter follows the language which we have heretofore quoted, "for pay of seventy-four agents . at the rates respectively indicated, namely." This language carries a strong implication that Congress was intending to pay the current expenses in full, and intended that the sums named for these Indian agents should be the total amount they should be entitled to receive. When to these facts is added that the plaintiff with his first commission received notice that the salary was to be $1500, as had been for years theretofore appropriated by Congress, and on reappointment that it was Statement of the Case. $1000, and that during the years of his service he received the appropriations and receipted for them as in full payment for his services, we think it must be adjudged that he has received all that of right and by law he is entitled to receive, and that the judgment of the Court of Claims should, therefore, be Affirmed. WARD v. COCHRAN. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. No. 110. Argued and submitted November 23, 24, 1893. Decided December 18, 1893. An express order of court during the judgment term, continuing a cause for the purpose of settling, allowing, signing, and filing a bill of exceptions, and the settlement and allowance and filing of the bill, during the terms to which the continuance was made, takes the exceptions out of the operation of the general rule that the power to reduce exceptions to form and have them signed and filed is, under ordinary circumstances, confined to the term at which the judgment is rendered. A bill of exceptions which, in so far as it relates to the charge, specifies with distinctness the parts excepted to, and the legal propositions to which exceptions are taken, is sufficient. A defendant in ejectment who relies on adverse possession during the statutory period as a defence must show actual possession — not constructive - and an exclusive possession - not a possession in participation with the owner, or others. When a special verdict is rendered, all the facts essential to entitle a party to a judgment must be found. A judgment rendered on a special verdict failing to find all the essential facts is erroneous; and consequently a special verdict in an action of ejectment, which finds that the grantor of the defendant entered into possession of the land in controversy under a claim of ownership and that he remained in the open, continued, notorious, and adverse possession thereof for the period of sixteen years, when he sold and transferred the same to the defendant, who remained in open, continuous, notorious, and adverse possession of the same under claim of ownership down to the present time, is defective in that it does not find that the adverse possession was actual and exclusive. THIS was an action of ejectment brought at the November term, 1887, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Statement of the Case. District of Nebraska, by Seth E. Ward, a citizen of the State of Missouri, against Elmer G. Cochran, a citizen of the State of Nebraska, to recover the possession of twenty acres of land situated in the suburbs of the city of Omaha, and described as the west one-half of the northeast one-quarter of section 4, township 15 north, range 13 east, in Douglas County, Nebraska. In pursuance of the practice in that State, under which two trials in ejectment are necessary to a final determination of a question of title, a trial was had before a judge, without a jury, and a judgment was entered in favor of the defendant. This judgment was forthwith, on motion of the plaintiff, set aside and a new trial was awarded. At this trial the record discloses that the plaintiff sustained his side of the issue by putting in evidence a chain of title from the United States to himself, consisting of a patent of the United States to Alexander R. McCandlers, dated March 13, 1861, for a tract of land, including the piece in dispute; a deed of Alexander R. McCandlers to Michael Thompson, dated May, 2, 1861, for the same tract; a deed of Michael Thompson and wife to Edward B. Taylor, dated July 5, 1862, for said tract; a mortgage of Edward B. Taylor to Ward, the plaintiff, dated July 28, 1871, on the twenty-acre tract in controversy, to secure the payment of certain promissory notes; the record of proceedings in suit by Ward, the plaintiff, against the heirs and legal representatives of Edward B. Taylor, who had died in 1872, to foreclose said mortgage, and a sheriff's deed, under decree in said suit, to Ward, the plaintiff, dated July 11, 1877; a deed of Edward A. Taylor (son and one of the heirs of Edward B. Taylor, and the only heir who had not been made a party to the foreclosure suit) to Ward, the plaintiff, dated June 25, 1885, for the twenty-acre tract in dispute. It was admitted that the value of the land was $20,000 at the time of the bringing of the suit. The defendant adduced evidence tending to show that one John Flanagan had entered on the tract in dispute in 1868, under a parol sale of said tract to him by Edward B. Taylor: that Flanagan had continued in possession of the tract until 1885, when, on November 25 of that year, Flanagan and wife Argument for Defendant in Error. conveyed the tract to the defendant by deed of that date, who entered into possession. On December 9, 1889, the jury rendered a special verdict, in the following words and figures: 66 "We, the jury impanelled and sworn to try the issues joined in the above-entitled cause, do find and say that one John Flanagan, in the year 1868, entered into the possession of the west one-half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of section 4, in township 15 north, of range 13th east of the 6th principal meridian, in Douglas County, Nebraska, being the land in controversy in this case, under a claim of ownership thereto, and that he remained in the open, continued, notorious, and adverse possession thereof for the period of sixteen (16) years thereafter and until he sold and transferred the same to the defendant in this case. "We further find that said John Flanagan and Julia, his wife, by good and lawful deed of conveyance, conveyed said premises to the defendant in this suit in 1885, and surrendered his possession to this defendant, and that said defendant has remained in the open, continuous, notorious, and adverse possession of the same under claim of ownership down to the present time. We therefore find that at the commencement of this suit the defendant was the owner of and entitled to the possession of the said premises, and upon the issues joined in this case we find for said defendant." On December 9, 1887, the plaintiff, by his counsel, moved for a new trial for reasons filed, and, on the same day, moved the court for judgment in his behalf notwithstanding the verdict. On December 5, 1889, the motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant in pursuance of the verdict; and to said judgment a writ of error to this court was sued out and allowed. Mr. Hugh C. Ward and Mr. James Hagerman for plaintiff in error. Mr. John M. Thurston and Mr. W. J. Connell, for defendant in error, submitted on their brief: Argument for Defendant in Error. I. This case was tried before a jury in the court below and a verdict rendered on the 9th day of December, 1887. Thereafter a motion for a new trial was held under advisement until the 5th day of December, 1889, of the November term of said court, when judgment was entered upon the verdict. It therefore appears that no bill of exceptions was prepared or presented at the trial term, and no order was asked with respect thereto by the plaintiff in error until the 26th day of December, 1889, just prior to the end of the November term, when the court entered an order without the consent of the defendant in error, giving the plaintiff until the first day of February, 1890, in which to present a bill of exceptions; a time beyond the said November term, at which the judgment was entered. We submit that it was not within the power of the court to make such an order; that the same was made without any notice to the defendant; and the bill of exceptions not having been signed and allowed at either the trial or the judgment term and having in fact been signed and allowed on the first day of March, 1890, a date long subsequent to the suing out of the writ of error and the service of the citation in the case -the said bill of exceptions was not in time to preserve of record the alleged errors complained of. Mühler v. Ehlers, 91 U. S. 249. II. The bill of exceptions in this case has been prepared in disregard of the rules of the court. Hickman v. Jones, 9 Wall. 197, 199, is in point where the court said: "We have to complain in this case, as we do frequently, of the manner in which the bill of exceptions has been prepared. It contains all the evidence adduced on both sides, and the entire charge of the court. This is a direct violation of the rule." The case at bar is similar to Hanna v. Maas, 122 U. S. 24. III. The decisions of the highest court of a State with respect to title by adverse possession, when there are such, establish the rule of property in that State. Harpending v. Reformed Dutch Church, 16 Pet. 455. In the absence of state decisions to the contrary, it is the rule of this court, established by an unbroken line of decisions, that adverse possession of real property continued for the statutory period |