This case involves the same question as McKean and Elk Land and Improvement Co. v. Clay, just decided. There was undisputed evidence in this case, as well as in the one referred to, that the plaintiff had notice some ten or eleven years prior to the commencement of this action of the purchase by Kane of the land in question. The learned judge, therefore, properly held that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the act of 1856.

Judgment affirmed.