Opinion of the court. It was further provided, that when a will had been admitted to probate, any person interested might at any time within one year after such probate, contest the same or the validity of the will, by filing in the same court a petition coutaining his allegations against its validity or the suf ficiency of the proof, and praying that the probate might be revoked. Hercupòn new citations were to be issued and a new trial had. But it was declared that if no person should within one year appear to contest the will or probate, the latter should be conclusive, saving to infants, married women, and persons of unsound mind, a like period of one year after disability removed.* In view of these provisions, it is difficult to conceive of a more complete and effective probate jurisdiction, or one better calculated to attain the ends of justice and truth. The question recurs, do the facts stated in the present bill lay a sufficient ground for equitable interference with the probate of Broderick's will, or for establishing a trust as against the purchasers of his estate in favor of the complainants? It needs no argument to show, as it is perfectly apparent, that every objection to the will or the probate thereof could have been raised, if it was not raised, in the Probate Court during the proceedings instituted for proving the will, or at any time within a year after probate was granted; and that the relief sought by declaring the purchasers trustees for the benefit of the complainants would have been fully compassed by denying probate of the will. On the establishment or non-establishment of the will depended the entire right of the parties; and that was a question entirely and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Probate Court. In such a case a court of equity will not interfere, for it has no jurisdiction to do so. The Probate Court was fully competent to afford adequate relief. But the complainants allege that in consequence of circumstances beyond their control, and without their fault, they had no knowledge or information of Broderick's death, * Hittell's Laws of California, Article "Probate Act" chap. 2, 13 30–36. Opinion of the court. and, of course, no knowledge of the forgery of his will until within three years prior to the commencement of this suit, and after the period for contesting the will in the Probate Court had expired, and when the power of said court to investigate the subject further had ceased. They therefore insist that as the Probate Court had no further jurisdiction over the subject, a court of equity was competent to give relief as against parties having possession of the estate or its proceeds mala fide or without consideration. Concede this to be true to a certain extent where injured parties have not lost their opportunity of appearing in the Court of Probate or in the equity court by any laches of their own; still it cannot help the complainants. What excuse have they for not appearing in the Probate Court, for example? None. No allegation is made that the notices were fraudulently suppressed, or that the death of Broderick was fraudulently concealed. The only excuse attempted to be offered is, that they lived in a secluded region and did not hear of his death, or of the probate proceedings. If this excuse could prevail it would unsettle all proceedings in rem. But even admitting that, as to surplus proceeds, and property undisposed of, or acquired by those having actual knowledge of the fraud, the complainants might come into a court of equity on the ground of their own ignorance of the events when they transpired, they would still have to encounter the statute of limitations, which expressly declares that action for relief on the ground of fraud can only be commenced within three years; and the statutes of limitation in California apply to suits in equity as well as to actions at law.* It is true that it is added that the cause of action in such case is not to be deemed to have accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the facts constituting the fraud. But that is only the application to cases at law of a principle which has always been acted upon in courts of equity. If fraud is kept concealed so as not to come to the knowledge of the party injured, those courts will not *Boyd. Blankman, 29 California, 19. Opinion of the court. charge him with laches or negligence in the vindication of his rights until after he has discovered the facts constituting the fraud. And this is most just. But that principle cannot avail the complainants in this case. By their own showing their delay was due, not to ignorance of the fraud, nor any attempt to conceal it, but to ignorance of Broderick's death, and all the open and public facts of the case. They admit, and expressly charge, that it was a matter of public notoriety at San Francisco, as early as 1861, that the will in question was not Broderick's will, but was a forged and simulated paper. They do not pretend that the facts of the fraud were shrouded in concealment, but their plea is that they lived in a remote and secluded region, far from means of information, and never heard of Broderick's death, or of the sale of his property, or of any events connected with the settlement of his estate, until many years after these events had transpired. Parties cannot thus, by their seclusion from the means of information, claim exemption from the laws that control human affairs, and set up a right to open up all the transactions of the past. The world must move on, and those who claim an interest in persons or things must be charged with knowledge of their status and condition, and of the vicissitudes to which they are subject. This is the foundation of all judicial proceedings in rem. The fact that two of the complainants are married women does not take them out of the operation of the statute of limitations of California. They are only exempt when it is necessary that their husbands should join them in the suit. This is not necessary by the law of the State where they sue for their separate estate, as in the present case. As to such property they act as femes sole. This suit, had it lain at all, could have been brought by the complainants, who are married women, though their husbands had refused to join them therein. The statute of 1862 has been referred to, which gives to the District Courts of California power to set aside a will obtained by fraud or undue influence, or a forged will, and any probate obtained by fraud, concealment, or perjury. Opinion of the court. Whilst it is true that alterations in the jurisdiction of the State courts cannot affect the equitable jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States, so long as the equitable rights themselves remain, yet an enlargement of equitable rights may be administered by the Circuit Courts, as well ns by the courts of the State. And this is probably a case in which an enlargement of equitable rights is effected, although presented in the form of a remedial proceeding. Indeed, much of equitable jurisdiction consists of better and more effective remedies for attaining the rights of parties. But the statute referred to cannot affect this suit, inasmuch as the statute of limitations would still apply in full force, and would present a perfect bar to the suit. We can perceive no ground on which the bill in this case can be sustained. DECREE AFFIRMED. Mr. Justice SWAYNE specially concurring. Mr. Justice CLIFFORD, with whom concurred Mr. Justice DAVIS, dissenting: I dissent from the opinion and judgment of the court in this case for the following reasons: (1.) Because courts of equity may exercise jurisdiction to set aside and annul a decree of the Probate Court approving and allowing an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of a deceased person, in a case where it appears that the instru ment is a forgery and that the decree approving and allowing the instrument was procured by perjury and fraud, provided it appears that the injured party has not been guilty of laches and that he has no other adequate remedy. (2.) Because all the leading authorities cited to support the opposite rule admit that the jurisdiction does exist in cases where there is no other remedy. (3.) Because the right of the complainants in this cause is not barred by the statute of limitations. Statement of the case. LANGDEAU v. HANES. The State of Virginia, which, prior to the Revolution, asserted title to the Northwest Territory, always respected the possessions and titles of the French and Canadian inhabitants who had declared themselves her çitizens; and when she ceded the Territory to the United States in 1783, she stipulated by the express terms of her grant for their confirmation ; and the United States, in 1784, in accepting the grant with this provision, bound themselves to perform the stipulation. The duty of the United States under the cession and acceptance and by the principles of public law, was to give to such inhabitants such further assurance as would enable them to enjoy urdisturbed possession and to assert their rights judicially to their property, as completely as if their titles were derived from the United States. The United States confirmed, or provided for the confirmation of these existing rights by resolutions and acts of Congress, in 1788, 1804, and 1807. The patents which the act of 1807 authorized did not convey the title. In the legislation of Congress a patent has a double operation. It is a conveyance by the government when the government has any interest to convey, but whero it is issued upon the confirmation of a claim of a previously existing title it is documentary evidence, having the dignity of a record, of the existence of that title, or of such equities respecting the claim as justify its recognition and confirmation. A legislative confirmation of a claim to land is a recognition of the validity of such claim, and operates as effectually as a grant or quit-claim from the government. If the claim be to land with defined boundaries, or capable of identification, the legislative confirmation perfects the title to the particular tract, and a subsequent patent is only documentary evidence of that title. If the claim be to quantity, and not to a specific tract capable of identification, a segregation by survey will be required, and the confirmation will then immediately attach the title to the land segregated. ERROR to the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Illinois; the case being thus: Langdeau brought ejectment, Angust, 1872, against Hanes for a piece of ground, which before our Revolution was part of the French and Canadian settlement of St. Vincents (now Vincennes), and, as such, part of the Northwestern Territory conveyed in 1783, by authority of the State of Virginia, who then claimed it, to the United States, under an express stipulation "That the French and Canadian inhabitants and other sot |