ACEBO V. GARAVEL. 1

ing out the name of any party, either plaintiff or defendant, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistaken or inadequate allegation or description -in any other respect, so that the actual merits of 'the controversy may speedily be determined, without regard to technicalities, and in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner. The court may also, upon like terms, allow an answer or other pleading to be made after the time limited by the rules of the court for filing the same. Orders of the court upon the matters provided in this section shall be made upon motion filed in court, and after notice to the adverse party, and an opportunity to be heard,
The second assignment of error raises the question of title as well as the good faith of the defendant in possession. It is conclusively shown and admitted that both the parties to this action claim title by and through one Noel Andre. As each recognized that the title to the property was in Andre" during the year 1886, and up to the time he professed to transfer the same to the plaintiff herein, it is unnecessary to consider anything in regard to title back of that established source.
At the trial the plaintiff offered in evidence two separate deeds, duly proved and properly registered, the one from Noel Andre to Bertrand and Gusset, dated the 14th day of August, 1886, and the other from Bertrand and Gusset to Acebo, the plaintiff herein, dated the 8th day of October, 1887. Nothing else appearIng, this gives to Acebo a perfect record title to the property.
The appellant contends that Noel Andre" had no power to convey the property at the date of the first deed mentioned above, as he was at that time a bankrupt, so declared by the Court of Commerce of the city of Panama.
The record introduced by the appellant for the purpose of showing this fact is so vague and incomplete that the court can not conclude that it successfully establishes the contention of the appellant's attorney.
The appellant further contends that, even admitting that the appellee had a good title to the property, under the Civil Code of Panama, in force in the Canal Zone, he, the appellant, is not chargeable with the "civil fruits" during his occupancy- of the house, provided he was a possessor in "good faith."
"Good faith," as defined by the Code, is:
The consciousness of having acquired the ownership of a thing by legal means, exempt of fraud and any defect.
The Code also provides that:
Good faith presumes the idea of having received a thing of one who had the power to alienate it. and that there was no fraud or other vice in the act or contract.

13