SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

was erecting buildings and installing machinery thereon. The portion of the premises so alleged to be occupied by the defendant, the African Construction Company, is called "El Valle" in the complaint and is specifically described and bounded therein.
The plaintiffs prayed for a decree of the court, confirming in them the title to the whole of said "Campo Alegre," declaring null and void the instiruments under which the African Construction Company claimed title to "El Valle," and enjoining the said construction company and all other persons from interfering with the peaceful enjoyment by the plaintiffs of their rights as owners of Campo Alegre.
The defendant, the African Construction Company, by its answer, denied all the allegations of the complaint and affirmatively alleged that it is the owner of "El Valle," describing said "El Valle" by substantially the same descriptions as that by which said "El Valle" is described in the complaint. Said defendant's answer further specifically alleged that the plaintiffs were not the owners of "El Valle" and alleged that same had been conveyed to the defendant company by the intervener by an instrument duly recorded.
The trial court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss which %as made at the close of the plaintiffs' case and to such denial, exception was entered by the defendants.
In its decree, the trial court adjudged that the plaintiffs-recover from the defendant, the African Construction Company, the premises claimed to be occupied by such defendant and decreed that the said defendant should, within 90 days from the date of the decree, remove from said premises the structures and machinery erected by it and recover nothing for said improvements. From the trial court's decree, the defendants appeal to this court.
The appellants in their brief argue a number of questions of law w ith respect to which it is urged that the trial court erred. We think, however, that it is necessary to discuss only one of the a.ssignments of error in order to dispose of this appeal.
At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the defendants moved that the complaint be dismissed and we are of the opinion that this motion should have been granted.
On the pleadings two fundamental questions arose for the determination of the trial court, viz:
1. Had the plaintiffs legal title to the premises known as "('arnpo Alegre"?

260