Final answer:
In the context of different persons with varying interests in real property, they likely hold the property as tenants in common. The situation involving Indian tribes and land treaties must be assessed using the principles of justice in acquisition and transfer to determine legitimate title.
Step-by-step explanation:
When different persons have different interests in real property and have taken title at different times, they probably hold title as tenants in common or in some form of concurrent ownership that does not require unity of time among other unities. The case described, involving two Indian tribes claiming land under separate treaties, touches upon issues of real property law and the principles that govern legitimate land acquisition. According to the principles of justice in holdings:
- A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the Principle of Justice in acquisition is entitled to that holding.
- A person who acquires a holding in accordance with the Principle of Justice in transfer, from someone else entitled to the holding, is entitled to the holding.
- No one is entitled to a holding except by (repeated) applications of (1) and (2).
In the scenario with the Indian tribes, the legitimacy of each tribe's claim may be evaluated based on these principles, taking into account the treaties (acquisitions) and whether those acquisitions and transfers were justly made. The complexity arises when treaties are in conflict or when interpretations of justice differ, thereby requiring a legal resolution to establish which party has proper title to the property.