
    Argued December 14, 1915,
    affirmed January 11, 1916.
    SYKES v. PROEBSTEL LAND CO.
    (153 Pac. 538.)
    From Multnomah: Henry E. McGinn, Judge.
    Department 2. Statement by Mr. Justice McBride,
    This is a suit by George Sykes and others against the Proebstel Land & Adjustment Company, a corporation, to quiet title to certain lots situated in the City of Portland. Plaintiffs claim title through the heirs of Jane Proebstel, the original donee from the United States; these alleged heirs being Thomas Chapman, a surviving brother of Jane Proebstel, Archibald Wood, George Wood, Christina Wood, Eliza De Saw-tell, Margaret Griffin, children of Ann Wood, deceased sister of Jane Proebstel, John Broomfield, and Jeremiah Broomfield, children of Margaret Broomfield, and Maria Hight and Margaret Blackburn, daughters of'James Chapman, a deceased brother of Jane Proebstel.
    The defendant claims title through numerous children and grandchildren of Andrew Chapman, who, it claims, was an uncle of Jane Proebstel, and whose children and grandchildren are alleged to have been the true heirs of Jane Proebstel. Upon the trial in the Circuit Court there were findings and a decree for plaintiffs, from which defendant appeals.
    Affirmed.
    For appellant there was a brief over the names of Mr. G. Evert Baker and Mr. Commodore S. Jackson, with an oral argument by Mr. Baker.
    
    For respondents there was a brief over the names of Mr. Earl C. Bronaugh, Mr. Arthur L. Veazie and Messrs. Flegel, Reynolds & Flegel, with oral arguments by Mr. Bronaugh, Mr. Veazie and Mr. Austin F. Flegel.
    
   Mr. Justice McBride

delivered the opinion of the court.

The testimony in this cause is very voluminous, and no good purpose would be subserved by a detailed discussion of it, as it would be of no interest or profit to the public at large or to the profession, and would needlessly encumber the reports. We have carefully examined it, and are of opinion that the persons through whom plaintiffs claim were the true and only heirs of Jane Proebstel, and that those through whom defendant claims have no interest in the property. This question of fact being resolved in favor of plaintiffs, a discussion of the questions of law so ably presented by respective counsel becomes superfluous.

The decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Mr. Chief Justice Moore, Mr. Justice Bean and Mr. Justice Harris concur.

Mr. Justice Eakin took no part in the consideration of this case.  