*1 TERM, 1887. Syllabus. The her bill, filed does not plaintiff, 1884, al- present influence in fraud undue any transaction lege original 1872, which she by purchased note property gave for but, mortgage part price; claims contrary, title under that and offers to purchase, amount of the pay note interest, mortgage rents and any deducting profits received the defendants. by uncontradicted of testimony well informed witnesses at the time of the settle- proves ment in the value half of undivided of did exceed not the amount of it has since mortgage, although of increased because the introduction of greatly irrigation. In the state facts of the settlement existing, appears been a have and fair one, made and under prudent’ deliberately advice counsel. competent Independently any question laches, therefore, shown for ground maintaining n suit. reversed,
Decree and case Cou/rt, remanded to the Circuit with directions dismiss the bill.
DOOLAN v. CARR. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE’ OF
DISTRICT CALIFORNIA. Argued 25, 24, No. 34. October 1887. Decided November jurisdiction, irrespective Court of Tbe Circuit tbe United States has citizenship parties, ejectment, of an action in which the controversy turns of a of land from the United States. n power in an officer Land may Office to is&ue a Want evidence, in an action at although shown law extrinsic be may required public be all the issued forms for a with law land. grant limits of a (which Land within the valid Mexican judie,e sub public aid- land in of the’ when Pacific Railroads was made 1, 1862, July July the act of as amended 1865), March prescribed found if after the location of the’ railroads to be within the them, pass corporations limits on either side did v. CARR.
DOOLAN Defendant in Error. Citations specific boundaries; land,” or if it described was known if was identified; it could but if a name it was or described quantity specific designated outboundaries as a within con- described outboundaries, area, only taining greater much land within the so as is *2 specific'quantity granted necessary to cover the excluded from companies. grant to the railroad documentary has been of a Mexican confirmed evidénce Official States, admissible on the trial authorities' of the power ejectment, in the Land of an action in show want Office public under the statutes for the same land as land” to issue a granting(cid:127)“ to aid in the construction of the Pacific Railroads. land” identify parol testimony the land as seem also that is admissible It would coming grant. the terms of the within Ejectment. on for the Yerdict plaintiff judgment . of error. The case is verdict. Defendants sued out this writ opinion. stated cited: Newhall
Mr. Michael
for
in.error
Mullany
plaintiffs
v.
761;
v.
92
S.
Kansas
Railroad
Dunmeyer,
U.
Sanger,
Pacific
52 Cal.
Leavenworth
213;
113
Rosecrans v.
629, 642;
U.
Douglass,
S.
;
92 U. S.
Wilcox
Railroad v. United
733
&
c.
v.
13 Pet.
21
Jackson,
498, 509;
v.
How. 426;
Salisbury,
Easton
Schools,
Hissel v.
Louis
18 How.
Reichart
19;
St.
Public
v.
6 Wall.
v.
9
v.
160;
Cranch, 87;
Polk
Carr
Wendall,
Felps,
50 Cal.
Powell,
57 Cal.
v.
394;
64;
Quigley,
McLaughlin
.v
52
v.
29
Forest,
Cal.
Robinson
Fowler,
203;
McLaughlin
Parker v.
Cal.
Kernan v.
317;
554;
Cal.
47
27
Griffith,
Duff,
580;
31
34
87;
Cal.
Kernan v.
Cal.
Cal.
Griffith,
462;
Knight
554;
15
v.
9
Doll
Roche,
;
Dickinson,
v.
56 Cal.
Summers
Cal.
16
v.
94
Meador,
295;
v.
Cal.
Connecticut Ins. Co.
Schaeffer,
240;
S.
v.
114
457;
U.
United States
U. S.
Minor,
Terry
v. Ar
24
84;
v.
Cal.
85 Am. Dec.
609;
Lytle
S. C.
Megerle,
620
Opinion of the Court.
Wall.
111
Quinn
6
v.
U. S.
160;
445;
hartv. Felps,
Chapman,
6
Road v.
S. & R.
Church v.
12;
Myers,
Baptist
Turnpike
4
3 Halsted
Darnell v.
181;
Dickens,
(8 N. J. L.),
Mulford,
2
35
Burrill v. Nahant
Met.
C. Am.
7;
Bank,
163;
Yerg.
S.
Bank v.
DOOLAN CARR.
(cid:127) Opinion of the Comfc. from the and line Missouri of a railroad River to the 'telegraph to secure to the and Ocean, Pacific use government and other and act same military, purposes, postal, -and in accordance March with 3d, 1865,” laws the State Central Pacific California, Railroad by Company Pacific Railroad the Western were consolidated. Company and introduction of this objected Although by its face to be defendants, valid, and it was appears upon admitted as therefore evidence. The also properly plaintiff of. introduced deed from Central Pacific conveyance after himself, and, Railroad further evidence as Company of the. its land, use and that value, occupation amount in ten thousand was over dollars, rested. controversy defendants, order show that the thereupon, to the railroad was issued without of law, company authority void, therefore offered evidence show that on, wit, the Mexican April José government granted a.d. Robert Livermore certain tract of land known Noriéga e the nam Las and which embraced all the Pocitas,’ within the boundaries, viz.: Bounded on the north following the Lomas las on the de east Cuévas, Siérra de .Buenos on the south line of the estab Ayres, dividing lishment of San José, on the west the rancho of Don Dolores José. in all two Pacheco, containing square leagues, within-the said provided bounda contained quantity ries if less than ; be found to be contained quantity therein, that less and all of described tract said quantity of land.
“That nation departmental assembly Mexican confirmed said to said and Livermore on, to Noriéga 22d, May wit, *4 on,
“That to wit, said 27th, 1852, and February Noriéga board of commissioners petitioned Livermore ap under the' of the act of pointed provisions Congress, approved March entitled An act 3d, 1851, to’ ascertain and settle the. land claims in the State of private California,’ have said and the grant confirmed, wit, 14th on, day February, a.d, the 1854, said board land commissionersconfirmed same the TERM, 699' Opinion pi the Court. and Livermore, their heirs to said Noriéga and the and-assigns, so made confirmation of. decree said grant by ^.aid Mexican land commissioners described board thereof boundaries de las north Lomas Cuévas, to be: On on east by the south de Buenos on Sierra Ayres, by by dividing of San José, line of the establishment on west Dolores that within the Pacheco, rancho of Don José provided than two found were leagues same square greater quantity if a be found therein,. less should to be contained; quantity was confirmed and all of said that less described quantity of land. .tract ' States District Court for the Northern United That the to it from said decree of the California, District of appeal commissioners, confirmed said Mexican of land duly board T8th, a.d. to the same 1859, extent wit, February on, grant and under the same conditions as same description, and the land commissioners done, board of Supreme said at Upited States, the December term, Court a.d. said Court decree of United States District affirmed the said - thereof. and every part 1865 an of the lands official
“That year purvey during and Livermore was made or said confirmed Noriéga so directions under the surveyor general and which was California, the State duly States said surveyor general year a.d. .approved half section land described in included the which survey said set' aside herein; survey the complaint a„d. in the new of the Interior year Secretary of said within the made Mexican ordered survey contain but set forth should decrees, boundaries said land, two leagues' square thereabouts. Unite.- March, States “That surveyor general th¿ Mexican to be caused said
for California surveyed with the thereof and- in accordance claims and designated forth decrees of confirmation, the boundaries set said within of about two so square the amount consisting segregated in accordance with the said order of Secretary-of leagues, said- and said the Interior, survey approved by surveyor' *5 CARR. DOOLAN Opinion of the Court. said and the wit, 11th, 1870; was on, May
general survey Land of the- General Office the Commissioner bn, approved and said 1871; March 1st, survey finally wit, approved' the Interior to wit, of June on, 6th, 1871, Secretary and on last-named date the said of (or surplus sobrante) land within the boundaries contained in embraced said grant from, and in decrees became freed said and discharged claims and of said reservation Mexican and became grant, land the United States 6f and a public part’ public domain thereof.
“ That the entire half of section described the com- herein is located and embraced within the plaint boundaries stated and tract described in and confirmed the said decree of the board of land commissioners United States Dis- trict Court and of the Court of the United States, Supreme it but was not included within the tract so in March, surveyed and on June 6th, a.d. as finally approved aforesaid, as the final of said. and Mexican survey said half sec-’ grant, tion of land in the described herein was held and complaint claimed as a of said Mexican part parcel grant, reserved as such from the 10th continually day April, a.d. 1839, down to 6th June, on said last- day a.d. named became for the first time day of' the United States. “ That the line of the road of said Western Pacific Eailroad of California was fixed Company under the definitely pro- visions of said act of the 30th on, to wit, Congress day under and within the and. intent January, meaning (cid:127)the act 1st, of. provisions 1862, entitled Congress July ‘ An act to.aid in the construction of railroad a. telegraph fine from the Missouri Ocean,’ Eiver to Pacific and the act thereof and thereto; and that amendatory supplemental on the‘31st 1865, the lands within"the limits day January, acts of designated to said' said Congress being granted railroad were withdrawn from company preemption, private .and sale under said entry, acts, that no the-provisions of the lands described part has been taken complaint or used' for turn-out switch, or. road-bed any depot, shop, TERM, 1887.
Opinion of the Court. said railroad railroad or of that said said railroad company; 1870.” year completed prior *6 to the thus offered to be made objected plaintiff proof and to other not defendants,, the material to the by proof on the consideration, now under “that the point ground be States cannot attacked in United this patent collaterally it can be attacked in that bill that action; only; equity said United States the recitals therein con- patent are in this action that the tained title legal conclusive'evidence of the lands described was transferred therein granted in said and, the United States to the named grantee patent, deed from the railroad taken in with the connection company of the to is conclusive evidence plaintiff’s plaintiff, recover.” to
The court- refused allow said sustained objection, ich to be to wh the defendants it, made, or any part proof, that The court then charged jury patent excepted. Pailroad is title this land to the Central Pacific to Company in a in It cannot be' attacked collateral conclusive this case. it a be at all direct manner. If it can attacked only by with- and, for the' patent; purpose vacating proceeding or the it be other, this, way out further remark may upon that, so far as that the law is to I sufficient say charge you from the concerned, this case is government introduced is conclu- here, the first railroad company, in this case.” of the sive of the parties rights and the' case defendants before To this charge excepted, the court on the us correctness‘of turns ruling the. of the in action at law none that proposition evidence could be received the defendants impeach offered by an issue as that at- and that such patent, could be made the defendants be raised only tempted it to set aside. a in suit equity to. that where the as is no'
There principle question in due form of have issued patent officers government law, title to the face is sufficient convey its which in valid is to be treated as such it, land described (cid:127) from suits subject, at law, equity, actions distinguished DOOLAN v. CARR. 62$ Opinion of the Court. at all times to
however, whether such officers had inquiry the lawful to make a of -the But authority conveyance title. . if officers acted without if thos the land which authority; had never been within their convey they purported control, from been withdrawn that control at «he time un- they — dertook to exercise such act their was void authority, void for want of them to act on the power subject-matter voidable latter ; case, if patent, merely the circumstances such direct decree, a justified proceeding, with averments would evidence, es- required should, voidable, tablish therefore be avoided. The distinction is a manifest one, circumstances although that enter into it are not defined. It is, never- always easily clear theless,'a distinction, law, established and it has been often asserted in this court, from the even gov- ernment issued with all the forms of law, *7 be shown to be if evidence, void extrinsic it be such may as is evidence its nature a want of capable showing .au- for its issue. thority of this court on this are full
The
so
decisions
subject
that a
to
decisive
reference
a few of them all
is
is
neces
87;
Polk's Lessee v.
9
Wendall,
sary.
Cranch,
Orleans
New
States,
v. United
10 Pet.
v.
662, 730;
Jackson,
Wilcox
dem.
13
Pet.
McConnell,
509; Stoddard v.
2
Chambers, How.
284, 317;
Easton v.
21 How.
; Reichart
Salisbury,
428
117;
6
v.
Wall. 160: Best v.
Polk, Wall.
Felps,
Railroad v.
;
Leavenworth
U. S.
Newhall
733
v. San
92 U. S.
v. Buick,
Sherman
93 U. S.
761;
209;
ger,
Co.
Smelting
6;
Co.,
v.
VOL. cxxv—to TERM, 1887.
Opinion of the Court. in offered a then evidence defendant issued the The 28, 179.5, dated also included State, August same the (of in reading prior patent dispute. cbjected .this the overruled, was read the objection being to, but, then to offered it' it, and is- Testimony impeach evidence. the that thé this branch subject opinion court, is Marshall, Chief Justice After con pertinent. delivered by which-the statutes to secure many provide guards (cid:127)sidering individuals, incipient grants rights regularity state from as imposition, well protect expresses as he; has the substance of which been often view, language a court that, be general, appears since equity repeated, into, to the ob better object tribunal adapted examining a which affect its than a court validity jections then, In a court of is- law. He says: general, equity tribunal these they the more ought eligible questions; a court of But there are cases in from law. excluded has Aroid;as Avhere state no is Avhich absolutely grant .'the officer had no au or Avhere title granted; thing cases, issue the such grant. thority examinable,at law.” necessarily p. court held that it-could-be shown, case,
In that the entries on it AAras Avhich defence patent, granted and that warrants were made, never were forgeries; of 1777, and, accrued under act no case Avhich the land been made from'the State, having purchase and that in laAV, void Avords Avas express Court erred. testimony point Circuit rejecting reversed. Avas,therefore, The judgment an of Wilcox Jackson action The ease ejectment *8 at Wilcox, the officer Fort Dear- commanding brought against in of land held him that char recover born, by to possession land was entered under a claim This acter. preemption by Beaubean, Avho procured paid purchase money He therefor. aftenVards.sold conveyed receipt register’s to the lessor of Avas, his interest j>laintiff. question whether, been certificate, Avhichseems have register’s if it evidence of title could be as sufficient Avasvalid, treated 62r v. CAER. DOOLAN Opinion of the Court. that the land was not testimony subject
impeached entry. of the Court on this lan- Supreme subject opinion 1 Pet. used Elliott Peirsol, 328, 340, guage quoted with approval: “ (cid:127) a court has it has a- Where decide jurisdiction which occurs and whether its cause; every question until decision correct or its otherwise, reversed, judgment, if it as other court. But act with- /is regarded binding every out and orders are as nullities. authority, judgments regarded its but voidablé, are not void.” simply They then Even “Now, The court this. assum- proceeds-: apply in the receiver, that the decision register ing absence be conclusive as to the facts .of the would fraud, applicant and his cultivation during preced- being,in possession, these are because submitted to directly ing year, questions if in land them; they undertake yet grant preemptions in which the law declares that shall not be they granted, then are not within their they upon subject-matter clearly acting much so as if a court whose jurisdiction; jurisdiction declared not to extend sum should beyond given attempt take of a case that sum.” cognizance beyond p.
In Stoddard v. which was an action of Chambers, ejectment, an was made to show that the defendant’s attempt This said in that void. court case: The location of Coontz was made -1818, his survey in 1818. At these dates there can be no that all land question under a claimed French or which claim has title, been Spanish filed the recorder of land with titles'— as claim plaintiffs’ had been —were reserved from sale the acts of Congress above stated. This reservation was continued to the 26th up it until it was revived ceased, when the act May, until of 9th and was continued the final confirma July, title the act of 1836. The tion defendant’s plaintiffs’ was issued the 16th' of 1832. So that July, appears entered, when defendant’s surveyed, claim the land so far as the location it, interferes' patented, covered ta with the was no survey, part plaintiffs’ * facts the authorized to be sold.’ On above important ques *9 TERM, 1887. 628 Opinion of Court. the defendant’s title whether is not void. That arises, tion examinable as well at law as in will ais chancery question That the elder must in legal be controverted. prevail not /title is undoubted. But the here is, of action ejectment inquiry title has defendant any against plaintiffs. whether be in seems difficulty there answering And question, His was location made on lands not liable to he' has not. that and this reserved; but was thus expressly be appropriated, . title was issued. . .'No can be held his when case patent and law, been such is the has which .acquired valid title, so defendant’s far as treriches on the character , of a . The .is ministerial act, (cid:127). issuing patent plaintiffs’. to law. A is be must which pérformed according for land had which is issued void and inoperative utterly . to another individual. . . The patented been previously been defendant reserved from having of also so void; Coontz, survey such appropriation, title.” conflicts with as either plaintiffs’ far in were governed These recognized principles deci in v. the court Easton Salisbury. sion v. which an action-of Reichart Felps, ejectment, under two claimed dates of patents, the plaintiff the court exhibit conclusive which evidence says n title been reserved, if previously granted, This to be permitted proved appropriated.” dated 12, 1799, St. Clair, G-overnor February duly regis This made in was held .to with survey tered de that the land was so reserved, evidence conclusive and 1853. feated patents his in-an title In Best Polk support plaintiff, from the United States,, produced patent action ejectment, which seemed in all to be 1S47, March 13, reg dated respects the section of land described to James Brown' :ular, granting The defendant, Best, Folk. who fee, conveyed being n possession, defeat this- by showing attempted the treaties' of 1832' land in reserved question which au Indians, the Chickasaw Nation 1834 with do and heads- so, of the tribe who desired to members thorized DOOLAU v. CARR.
Opinioij of ttteiGourt. when lands, to locate so located families, were to be *10 other from sale or the United reserved States. disposition;by land, to that The defendant undertook show the on which he was the of was which had settled,' been controversy, subject an and was therefore located not Indian, liable to properly the time that Brown it of the land sale at officers. purchased the of The court below evidence because certain defi rejected in ciencies the certificate made Edmondsofl, register of land office at who certified that Pontotoc, the the in was as located a resérve a Chickasaw Indian, question the in This under court the July, treaty, judg reversed in in ment favor of the court below, plaintiff .rendered holding that was sufficient, the certificate and that it showed that of the action in Indian treaty, settling -it, la certificate of that fact from procuring officer, the land -had in reserved become language and that under which the treaty, plaintiff was claimed therefore void: also Polk's Lessee v. Wend citing v. Pet. 436. ell, Broderick, 13 Bagnell In the case of v. Silver Iron Reynolds Co., U. S. Mining decided last which was an action recover year' pos session of a vein or lode mineral part deposit, plaintiff on relied for a mine, and the contested vein placer was within the of its lines area extended superficial perpendic The statute which this was issued declared ularly. it should that not confer to veins known right to exist any it at within the time the was made. Defendants offered evidence to that the vein in show was known controversy at the time of exist his for the patentee application patent.
The Circuit Court that because de- jury charged had fendants shown no whatever to vein, but right were in could in possession not, trespassers, they naked defence of that show this possession, But plaintiff’s tille. d.efect this court Chief Justice held that (the dissenting) ruling (cid:127) was as in erroneous, that, all other actions ejectmént, must recover on the of his own and not plaintiff strength title, on the weakness of defendants’. TERM, 1887.
Opinion of the Court. established so well' decisions, these the principles With law ’extrinsic at prove by competent action an .right the United States is void for want a evidence issue facts it, and the which show officers of power we come case Newhall v. Sanger, want power, establishes that land cov 761, which proposition S. 92 U. mean claim land within tbe Mexican’ ered by to the railroads, dot of making Congress ing from the of those statutes. clause was reserved granting but v. &c. Railroad Leavenworth, Lawrence at the same with Newhall Sanger, S. decided time U. Mr. Justice in both cases delivered by being the opinions to show this want authority Davis, the question a case discussed. also That very fully its suit in establish brought railroad equity company in Kan of land Avithinthe title to tract's country, lying Osage *11 to the of that State had been which certified sas, governor in the to aid construction of.the made by Congress part This Avas certain railroads. authority of done'by,the supposed alter 3, March 12 Stat. the act of every of granting in odd Kansas, the State of nate of designated section road, ten sections in each side of Said numbers, Avidth, for (cid:127) of its branches. of each in it also the usual that case should reservation, It contained the line or route of railroad and branches Avhen said appear fixed, that the United had sold States any Avasdefinitely or or that the homestead right granted, preemption had attached was same, settlement given lands lands; other and it and all sélect any provided reserved to the acts of Con- United States by theretofore or other manner for by. any authority, competent gress, or internal object improvement, any aiding purpose whatever, and the same are be, hereby, other any purpose from of the act.” to the United States reserved operation lands of the road that case located The route was through their and which Indians, Avhichhad belonged Osage ’ This until title was not extinguished September held that, court granting notwithstanding generality n DOOLAN CARR. of the Court.
Opinio^ it not intended was statute to clause, grant anything lands; but at of the United States date public grant, and that was sufficient reservation clause these except pf then in the lands, out Indians, possession grant, even if the could be construed to include general language them. The court “A of this land says: special .exception not in these necessary because grants, dictated policy them them confined to land which could Congress rightfully without bestow, relations and disturbing existing producing vexatious conflicts. The which reserved it for legislation any it from as the excluded lands purpose, are usu- disposal public (cid:127)of.” ally disposed In the case of Newhall v. of the suit Sanger object to determine the of á section of land in ownership quarter California. The under which the claimed -was appellee the act of 1862 lands to railroad granting issued for the a railroad companies purpose constructing Pacific 12 Stat. 489, 492. One of the companies Ocean.. the Western Pacific Eailroad to which was Company, granted alternate section of every land, odd num designated within ten bers, on each side its road, re sold, miles. or served, otherwise the United and to disposed which a homestead or claim not have attached preemption may at the .time the line of the road was fixed. The act definitely also as in declared, other oasgs,that should not defeat di* impair any or homestead, land, other preemption, law swamp ful nor claim, include .reservation or any mineral government lands, bona settler. The the'-improvements any appel fide *12 lant asserted title under a of the United States of later which date, recited that within the exterior limits of a Mexican had, called and that a grant Moquelamos, been by mistake, issued to the It was conceded company. that the land in fell within the-limits controversy railroad grant act of Stat. enlarged by 1864,13 amendatory same act now under “and consideration, the question “ arises,” said the whether lands court, within the boundaries of an Mexican or alleged which was then Spanish s%ib grant,- are juclice, within the public of the acts of meaning Congress TERM, 1887.
Opinion of the Court. title rests was whereon appellee’s under which issued to the railroad company.” that this is the
It'will be seen precise question presented and the under consideration, court, the case referring Railroad Leavenworth, case of Lawrence &c. preceding in that that S. the fact States, U. United reciting ” “ confined a alternate section every case they grant in the title was vested to such whereto complete absolutely “ are The acts this case which govern proceeds: The words and leave less room for construction. moré explicit, ’ ‘ to describe lands are used our habitually legislation public laws. are sale or other such as subject disposal general t.o from instance is evident That so they employed .were lands the fact that to them alone could the order withdrawing The court from and sale preemption, private entry, apply.” in a lands included on to show the status of goes or Mexican claim before tribunals charged pending Spanish such that the it, with the duty adjudicating right of sover could not be by change private property impaired included in the such lands were not phrase eignty, ” “ until lands and that of these railroad grants, public specific were’not claims decided to be invalid such were they finally to be restored lands body subject granted. public Mexican or Those claims were often described, attempted claims were often boundaries. described, by They specific much outbounda- for a definite of "land within quantity larger of a the name were ries, they place, described by frequently was for or ranche. To the extent of the claim when name, or land with known boundaries, specific by particular outboundaries thé extent of the claimed within and to quantity from are excluded area, they containing greater did not de- to the railroad this exclusion Indeed, .company. estab- its final claim asserted, upon pend of a a claim lishment, but the fact that there existed un- under a yet the Mexican grant by government, lands,” and to which therefore the determined, phrase include,- did attach, although and which the statute hot could limits, side be found within the on each might prescribed road when located. *13 DOOLAN v. CARR. Waite,
Dissenting C. J. Qpinion: case, offered in the that the is It objected testimony present the facts below, the court and rejected prove concerning by defeat the to the rail- would Mexican that even road is and conceding right parol, company, on the title con- action at law founded assail the an this cannot be done testimony. it, by veyed by parol .But can be in this case how far such without testimony deciding it is sufficient law for that received an action at purpose, court below the that the evidence by say rejected and matter of record, case is documentary entirely present the Mexican evidence of by gov- written being of Cali- the Land Commission ernment, of its confirmation by that commission the award of of the affirmance of fornia, this court, States, the District Court of the United made surveyor of the record of the two surveys the Commissioner the latter confirmed confirmation of the location and Land Office, General showing all those transac- at which the Mexican and the dates grant, was ad- not that this evidence tions occurred. We do doubt offered, for which it was any for the missible purpose if in contro- the land oral were necessary identify testimony and the the Mexican surveys within grant, versy coming not we do courts, the Land decisions Office, that not clear it is thinlc it would be inadmissible, although such was or was offered. any necessary this evidence of, For the radical error the court rejecting the same point, in the instructions jury given to the Cir- remanded is the case reversed, udgment j a new trial. cuit Courtfor Y/aite Justice Chief dissenting.
Mr. to withhold assent .to judgment. I feel my compelled va case the that in a dissent is not proper my The ground for the conveyance of the United States lidity it in a suit at law not be attacked proving lands may this is but that without the authority, ivas issued requisite I that rule. To show case for the application TERM, Dissenting Opinion: Waite, C. J. the' existence of the to make such if
recognize proof, offers it is in a to do so, person'who position neces only *14 to refer to Simmons v. Wagner, U. S. sary 260, as where, of the court, I the announced its that organ decision, one in under a issued certificate a officer in the possession by proper course of his official that he duty, had regular showing and for land, the paid defend an might successfully bought ejectment action of him the holder of a brought against by issued an another made after entry by patent party long and accrued; because, his after the under rights purchase in the land he was was no a which' possession part longer and domain, the the officers of the United States had public in law to sell it second a time. no authority can however, In such be made my proof opinion, by only in holds a or one who law which is right in equity prior at to that the dr one who claims time under patentee, by the a United States or authorized some subsequent recog- I of title. Unless have nition the cases on this misinterpreted doctrine, has been the of this court. always subject, Wendall, Lesseev. Cranch, In 87, Polk's the controversy two one under was between issued persons, holding Carolina, of North dated the State 28, 1795, and August the under the same land, other another issued dated State, 17, 1800, the same and the was, April question whether, the second the first was In good. Jackson, 498, 13 Pet. defendant an Wilcox v. officer States, of the United of a under possession post military and authority government, plaintiff and of certificates receiver of the register holder land that he had and office, for the land showing bought paid under The officer ]apreemption entry. possession,holding and for the Avas under allowed to that at prove the time of and the land been entry reserved purchase from mass of and that its sale lands, officers Avas and unauthorized In void. government Stoddard. v. 2 How. Chambers, AvasbetAveenone controversy under the loca claiming Spanish grant patentee tion of a New Madrid certificate. The confirmation of the-
doolan Carr. v. Waite, Opinion :
pissenting' C. J. until after made but location, as the was not time to New Madrid prior grantee-was Ayas to show that the land Avas he reser\red claimant, permitted the location of the from certificate sale, consequently thereunder unauthorized, Easton v. invalid.. In 21 How. arose question upon substantially Salisbury, Avasdecided in the same the same facts, Avay. Reichart the holder 6 Wall. of a French settler’s claim, Felps, in the to the United States of grant by Virginia recognized the northwest and confirmed or territory, patented by Gover nor St. under the act of June Clair, 2Ó,1788, Avas permitted contest the issued the United States' for patents t;he in 1838 land, same and one ground had “been that the land' previously granted, reserved'from therefore the sale, appropriated,” patents inopera were *15 and void. In Best v. 18 Wall. the 112, tive Avere Polk, parties a the holder of a title under of the United States Avith treaty the Nation of Indians and a Chickasaw The junior patentee. holder of the elder title was to shoAvthat when permitted the which, under the claim Avasmade was'issued, subsequent patent “ been, land had the reserved from or previously granted, sale, title could be appropriated,” consequently acquired under In it. Newhall v. 92 U. 761, S. side claimed Sanger, one under a issued the same railroad in is patent grant volved the and the other suit, under a present subsequent recited that the land was Avithinthe exterior patent of a Mexican called limits a grant .that Moquelamos, mistake, been issued had, com patent [railroad] Such a AvasalloAvedin that suit junior patentee pany.” - of the elder The validity patent company.' contest case Lawrence Leavenworth, and Galveston Railroad v. 92 was a 733, U. S. suit the United United brought by the railroad its title States to lands company quiet a claimed under That of Kansas grant. company c v. 113 U. S. so much 629, relied Railway Dunmeyer, Pacifi .on, as between the claimant a presented under question and the holder of a from United grant patent railroad fhe a, States issued on homestead made entry She subsequently. TERM, Opinion: Waite,
Dissenting C. J. 93 U. S. was between 209, Buick, holder of a v. rmam States and the holder a from United patent patent, under a California, from the State claiming prior the same land for school States United purposes. Cases, U. S. and 106 U. S. Smelting Company under a those were between for a min claiming patent placer and certain claim lots town site of occupants ing had been Leadville which reserved from sale loca prior In v. tion of claim. Silver Reynolds Iron Com Mining 116 U. S. was not one of question admitting pany, invalidate a but as to the effect of a proof patent,' legal claim, for a and it was held not to placer mining patent in: elude veins or lodes within the boundaries the claim as downwards, on the and extended if surface vertically located when v. known to exist issued. Wright S. term, U. decided at the last Roseberry, party held under a of a the State of California tract conveyance by of land which the State claimed under the lands, States the other under a overflowed swamp from the United States issued entry. upon preemption more cases of a it cited, similar character but Many might is needless to them further. establish all pursue They beyond if one holds an if he that, title, older is question under a claim to title position junior represent gov ernment, he attack of a a suit at may law on the that was it issued without ground proper authority.
On the other
me
hand,
settled,
seems to
well
equally
if he who
seeks
contest the
a mere
volunteer,
he will not be
intruder,
Thus,
Anderson,
heard.
in Hoofnagle
*16
Dissenting J. that of the was before Com- his appellants complete patent a doubted that land. menced. It is not appropriates Any which are law, in the are defects steps, by preliminary required It from its date, is a title has cured patent. always all those Svhose did not com- been held conclusive rights against to its emanation. Courts have con- mence equity previous as the commencement of title, sidered an have entry n founded on a sustained a valid entry against prior if issued after such valid was made. But defective entry, entry no farther. have never sustained an have They entry they gone the date of the have made after patent. They always rejected claims. reason is A such The obvious. patent appropriates vacant, it and that no is. covers; land, the land being longer to location. If the has been issued longer subject means for -may provide irregularly, government repealing individual has a to annul to consider it, but no it; to himself.” land as still vacant, pp. appropriate to me to be the true and one rule; 215. This seems way to annul a has been issued may adopt government is to the land to law, another, without authority with its own to test the new thus clothe power grantee to divest it of title. Such former proceedings the United thus be made will represent grantee States for the land. With such a title, he sue and may authority, the- courts as has it, may properly, something equivalent is, him to assert his own title, been done allow heretofore, one which was the title of apparently the government, against direct, attack on the title would be before. Such an granted had been as collateral, given authority proceed government purpose. the suit 18 How. Roberts, brought Cooper the State of con title a patent Michigan holding to be school land, claimed tract of what against
veying under a lease one who had into Secretary possession got The title of the State of War for mining purposes. and the States the United adjudged good defendant defendant in objected possession. of the State the officers because plaintiff’s right recovery *17 TERM, . OCTOBER 1887. Waite, Opinion: Dissenting C. J. the statutes of m
violated' after lands; Michigan selling they or known, were have been minerals.” known, contain might As to Mr. this, Justice for the Campbell, court, speaking p. said: "Without a nice into these statutes, inquiry ascertain whether such lands from or into the sale, they reserve disputed fact whether were or known, known, been they might have contain we are is minerals, that the defendant opinion of. to raise the on this issue. The officers of condition question the State of the chief Michigan, embracing magistrate State, and who have the and of this charge Superintendence sale to have been made property, certify law, pursuant and clothed the have with the most solemn evidence purchaser of title.' The defendant does not claim in with Michi privity but holds an adverse gan, right, trespasser upon is land to her title is attached. has not com Michigan sale, so retains, shows, far as this case plained for it. Under thése we must price paid circumstances regard- as conclusive of the fact of a valid and sale regular ; on this issue.”
So in Field v. 19 How. the same Seabury, rule-appears. There it was said that the whether a from á question grant fraud was obtained sovereignty by legislative authority between the .exclusively sovereignty making It seems to me clear that the rule same grantee. applies The case of v. questions illegality. Spencer Lapsley, How. is There the was as to equally significant. question of a Mexican and the court refused to inves grant, the fairness of the at the of one who instance tigate “ entered without a color of so title,” said, doing again Mr. Justice the State “Neither speaking through Campbell: the, Coahuila nor Texas, nor the' Texas, E-epublic has taken nor Texas, measures to cancel this State grant, have conferred on the defendant commission they any vindicate them' fróm He is a volunteer. doc wrong: trines of the court do not favor such a litigant.”
The last case in this court to -whichI will refer the present' connection Ehrhardt 115 U. S. There Hogaboom, suit was title under a brought by claiming v. CARR.
DOOLAN Waite, Opinion: Dissenting C. J. States issued to settler, one who preemption
contended the was void because the lands at were, time of the and overflowed lands entry, preemption swamp which to the State of an California under act Con- of passed in 1850. As a to defence the action the defendant gress passed offered to the character of the but we held land, this prove offer was denied he because as to the land in waá, dis- properly “ a intruder, without claim or color of title. pute, simple He in was, therefore, no to call in of position question States, the United . . . and requjre to vindicate the action plaintiff officers of the Land in it.” Department issuing some
. state'courts the has same been madet ruling in Thus, Crommelin v. Minter, 594, 9 Alabama, before the “ Court Alabama in it Supreme was decided* 1846, that a patent, or which has in obtained, issued fraudulently violation law, void, and a does authorize recovery against party in color title. But a possession mere intruder cannot insist on the of the And inso invalidity patent.” Doll 16 Cal. it Meador, 295, was held Court Supreme that California, not void 1860, its patent, face, cannot be either questioned, collaterally, directly, by per sons who do not show themselves be in with a privity common or source title;” paramount coürt, its was careful “the here is delivering opinion, say, point as to the status of can who raise as to party any question its when it is on its [the'patent’s] face.” validity, regular
I but eannot believe is the true doctrine. If the govern- ment is satisfied with what has all others done, been must be; and it will be deemed it in law to be unless satisfied, proceeds itself to correct else the error or authorizes some one so. do
It remains to consider what Doolan McCue only position in this to the Cen- The land was occupy litigation. patentéd tral and the rail- Pacific Bailroad 28,1814, February Company road below, June Carr, company conveyed plaintiff so States, 1814. No has made the United attempt been 10th far On the as this record discloses, patent. to.annul entered November, Doolan and McCue each TERM, 1887. Waite, Opinion: Dissenting C. J. under a claim of settlement. of the preemption acres declaratory state- made and subscribed a of them
Each land on which to claim and intention his preempt ment of under the laws of the United pre- had settled he but he refused office; it sented register existence it on receive ground of title which This is''all the claim company. railroad are uniform to the effect but the decisions have; they on them no been done conferred had thus rights what it them States. the United Certainly gave suit States to avoid the United to represent issued. been 9 Wall. In Frisbie Whitney, appeared that what had been this court decided supposed March, void for of the Soscol Kanch was a valid Mexican to be *19 make it. At in the Mexican want of authority government of the this decision Frisbie was time of possession quar- the title. Whit- in the suit under the Mexican involved ter section forcible of the same took afterwards possession quarter ney it as a- settler under the claimed to hold and preemp- section the He laws of United tion applied States.. the statute but to make his declaration under they
officers March, 1S63, it. the 3d of to receive On refused Congress c. Stat. -whichthe bona an act, pur- passed fide Mexican title were allowed to lands under the buy chasers availed himself of this statute United States. Frisbie from the him for a his then sued and Whitney conveyance got patent. title because of the of the superior equity alleged legal his settlement. This lm, preemption Whitney, acquired by cpurt that a on the lands of decided settlement how'ever public matter how conferred no continued, no long added, it was “the land and, against government, right to. the absolute continues Congress subject' disposing power and of settlement until settler'has made proof required and has money.” purchase paid requisite improvement the bill For this reason the title of Frisbie sustained is to the 15 Wall. Case, dismissed. Yosemite Valley same effect. n
DOOLAN v. CARR. Waite, Opinion: Dissenting C. J. been, held that a can never
It has also
preemption
the actual
of another.
intrusion
acquired
possession
1;
Statement of the Case. United States'-shall issue (cid:127)of the therefor, shall relate back date of .the- certification to or original patenting, Interior, on behalf of the United Secretary shall from the demand which has payment so of company disposed such lands of an amount equal government price and in case of similar or lands; refusal of such com- neglect to make as’hereafter within pany payment specified, ninety after the shall have been days made, the Attorney- demand General shall cause suit suits be such brought against for the said amount.” company
I believe cannot whose claim to under rights laws United States is-thus ignored by in-what Congress Avas decided Frisbie v. ubi valid Whitney, supra, leg- can avail islation, himself Avant in the officers authority issue Avhich is valid on government face, its patent, eviction from the patented protect himself. Avhich has entered as he and without color trespasser, any title.
JOHNSON CHRISTIAN. THE APPEAL FROM CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN OF ARKANSAS. DISTRICT 2,1888. 195. Submitted No. April April 1888. Decree vacated May 14, Decided Court, equity, In a suit in in a Circuit obtain a release of land from lia- trust, bility plaintiff appeal a deed of had a decree. an On defendant, jurisdiction this court evidence .the the Cir- citizenship ground Court cuit on the was found in the record. This costs, court reversed the decree with remanded the case for further proceedings. reversing decree The decree the Circuit Court this-case on the ground-that jurisdiction the record contained no evidence of the of that vacated, court was then because the record showed that the suit was in-ejectment brought judgment to restrain enforcement of a recovered n in the same Circuit Court. of the bill was that the com prayer equity. Bill have the order of the court and' decree releas plainants may