Page 1

Case submitted by Mr Seurll

February 7 1888

From the very[?] kind statement signed by Messn. Duncan a Morgan, exhibited to me by Mr Seurll, latin[?] to the case of Beaty's Admd. v Gilson, and assuming that the value of the 80 acres lost from Beaty's [?] by the adverse claim A Holmes' heirs, is fix-ed at 1500, ^ I am of opinion that that farm is to be abated from the 9000, the amount of Beaty's purchase - money, or the day of the purchase, that is 29 July 1869, and not at the date of eviction[?].

I so conclude from the doctrine as stated 2 Min. [?] (650) 727, and the case there int-ed[?], and especially Thompson v Guthrie. 9 Leigh 107, and Hurrean v Thornhill, 2 N. Bl. 1078, and that conclusion in fortified by the justice and [?] of the case.

If Beaty had paid the purchase-money and taken a conveyance with covenant[?] of [?] corresponding to those in the title[?] - there can be no doubt I presume that he or his [?] ,when the eviction which