519

Notes on U. S. Reports.

125 U. S. 217-240

Constitutional law. Neither does prohibition of Oregon organic act against interference with private contracts, p. 214.

Public lands.- Settler on Oregon donation lands, has no title till four years' residence, p. 215.

Divorce ends rights not vested; e. g., wife's interest in husband's subsequent title to Oregon donation lands, p. 216.

Approved in McSorley v. Hill, 2 Wash. 642, 27 Pac. 553, holding divorce of married claimant, pending required residence, reduces his rights to those of single claimant.

125 U. S. 217-224, 31 L. 759, HOSKIN v. FISHER.

Appeal. Certified copy of patent, found in record, may be considered, although not shown properly introduced, p. 220.

Approved in Clark Thread Co. v. Willimantic Linen Co., 140 U. S. 486, 35 L. 524, 11 S. Ct. 848, a like case.

Patents. Unreasonableness of delay in seeking reissue, is question of law, p. 222.

Patents. Fact of grant of reissue is insufficient to explain delay, otherwise constituting laches, p. 222.

Patents. Two years' unexplained delay in seeking enlarged reissue is unreasonable, p. 222.

Approved in Electric Gas Co. v. Boston Elec. Co., 139 U. S. 502, 35 L. 260, 11 S. Ct. 593, holding unexplained delay in applying for reissue, fatal to its validity.

Patents. Invention first claimed in reissue, and not attempted in original, is waived, p. 223.

Approved in Flower v. Detroit, 127 U. S. 571, 32 L. 178, 8 S. Ct. 1296, reaffirming rule; Freeman v. Asmus, 145 U. S. 239, 240, 36 L. 690, 691, 12 S. Ct. 942, 943, a like case; Featherstone v. George R. Bidwell Cycle Co., 57 Fed. 636, 14 U. S. App. 632, holding reissue seeking to broaden original claim, invalid.

Appellee should bring up, by certiorari, necessary parts of record neglected by appellant, p. 224.

Approved in Nashua, etc., R. Corp. v. Boston, etc., R. Corp., 61 Fed. 245, 21 U. S. App. 50, holding remedy for appellee in case of defective transcript, is to suggest diminution and ask for certiorari.

125 U. S. 224-240, 31 L. 736, FRIEDENSTEIN v. UNITED STATES. Evidence.- Declarations to treasury agent, by one offering for sale goods libelled for condemnation, held res gestæ, p. 230.

Approved in Jones v. Hess, Tex. Civ. App., 48 S. W. 47, holding declaration of person in charge of sheep, prior to seizure, admissible to show possession of mortgagor.

Indictment and information.- Defects in information, available at all stages of case, are cured by verdict, p. 230.

Reaffirmed in United States v. Fifteen Barrels, 51 Fed. 423.

125 U. S. 240-259

Notes on U. S. Reports.

520

Information under revenue laws, seeking only forfeiture, is civil action; yet so far criminal that general verdict on several counts is sustainable, if one is good, p. 231.

Approved in United States v. A Lot of Jewelry, etc., 59 Fed. 686, holding information after verdict, not to be judged strictly, as indictment; United States v. Ortega, 66 Fed. 715, arguendo.

Customs duties.- Information for forfeiture need not aver intent, but finding of intent is necessary, at trial, p. 234.

Followed in Origet v. United States, 125 U. S. 245, 81 L. 746, 8 S. Ct. 849, a like case.

125 U. S. 240-247, 31 L. 743, ORIGET v. UNITED STATES. Exceptions, bill of.- Initials attached to alleged bill, not suffi cient authentication by judge, p. 244.

Approved in Malony v. Adsit, 175 U. S. 287, 20 S. Ct. 117, holding settlement and signing by successor of trial judge, invalid; Lincoln Sav. Bank, etc., Co. v. Allen, 82 Fed. 150, 49 U. S. App. 503, holding statement of counsel in assigning errors, insufficient; Scaife v. Western North Carolina Land Co., 87 Fed. 311, 59 U. S. App. 34, holding judge's initials not a signature.

Customs duties. In action for forfeiture, jury's finding of intent to defraud, suffices under act, 1874, p. 245.

Followed in United States v. Fifteen Barrels, 51 Fed. 423, a like

case.

Customs duties.- Forfeiture for false invoicing is no part of punishment, and enforceable irrespective thereof, p. 247.

Approved in United States v. One Thousand One Hundred and Fifty and One-half Pounds of Celluloid, 82 Fed. 634, 54 U. S. App. 288, holding proceeding for forfeiture independent of criminal responBibility.

125 U. S. 247-259, 81 L. 678, SOUTHERN DEVELOPMENT CO. v. SILVA.

Equity. Responsive answer, under oath, must be offset by testimony of more than one witness, p. 249.

Approved in Peeler v. Lathrop, 48 Fed. 788, 2 U. S. App. 40, holding one witness and unanswered letter from plaintiff's attorney, insuffi. cient; M'Gorray v. O'Connor, 79 Fed. 863, accepting sworn answer, not waived as true, in absence of other evidence; Beard v. Bliley, 3 Colo. App. 485, 34 Pac. 273, party alleging fraud must prove it.

Vendor and purchaser.- What circumstances vendor's fraud will Justify rescission, stated, p. 250.

Approved in Wainscott v. Occidental, etc., Assn., 98 Cal. 258, 33 Pac. 90, and Crocker v. Manley, 164 Ill. 291, 56 Am. St. Rep. 198,

521

Notes on U. S. Reports.

125 U. S. 260-273

Or.

58

45 N. E. 580, both reaffirming rule; Poppleton v. Bryan, Pac. 769, where vendor was not shown to have knowingly misstated extent of interest in property.

Qualified in Bement v. La Dow, 66 Fed. 188, arguendo.

Vendor's false statement as to amount of ore in sight in mine, is not a representation authorizing rescission, p. 251.

Approved in Nounnan v. Sutter Co. Land Co., 81 Cal. 6, 22 Pac. 516, 6 L. R. A. 221, erroneous statements of opinion will not support action of damages; Crocker v. Manley, 164 Ill. 293, 56 Am. St. Rep. 200, 45 N. E. 580, where mineowner stated ore on dump would pay par value of stock; Lake v. Tyree, 90 Va. 723, 19 S. E. 789, where vendor stated lots were "good building lots, and valuable."

Distinguished in Benton v. Ward, 47 Fed. 256, sustaining complaint alleging false statement of ownership of secret process; Mudsill Min. Co. v. Watrous, 61 Fed. 167, 22 U. S. App. 12, where vendor's representations were accompanied by salted specimens of ore; Green v. Turner, 80 Fed. 45, where statements as to ore vein were of facts. Vendor and purchaser.- Presumption of vendor's knowledge is not raised by mere proof of false statement, p. 257.

Vendor and purchaser.- Buyer, neglecting opportunity to investigate mine, cannot rescind for misrepresentation, p. 259.

Approved in Farrar v. Churchill, 135 U. S. 615, 34 L. 250, 10 S. Ct. 773, Farnsworth v. Duffner, 142 U. S. 48, 35 L. 933, 12 S. Ct. 165, and Colton v. Stanford, 82 Cal. 383, 16 Am. St. Rep. 155, 23 Pac. 23, all reaffirming rule.

Distinguished in Wainscott v. Occidental, etc., Assn., 98 Cal. 257, 33 Pac. 89, where vendor's artifice prevents full investigation.

125 U. S. 260-273, 31 L. 731, HANNIBAL, ETC., R. R. v. MISSOURI RIVER PACKET CO.

Statute granting privilege from government, must be construed in grantor's favor, p. 271.

Approved in Coosaw Min. Co. v. South Carolina, 144 U. S. 562, 36 L. 542, 12 S. Ct. 691, holding only what is granted clearly and explicitly, passes by legislative grant.

Bridge across the Missouri at Kansas City, being, when properly measured, less than the 160 feet between spans, authorized by act of 1866, is unlawful, p. 271.

Approved in Pennsylvania Ry. Co. v. Baltimore, etc., Ry., 37 Fed. 130, holding congressional sanction does not render bridge legal structure, unless built in conformity with act; Assante v. Charleston Bridge Co., 41 Fed. 366, holding bridge not built perpendicularly across channel, must leave clear of required width as so built; Kentucky v. Louisville Bridge Co., 42 Fed. 245, but holding approach no part of bridge; Texarkana, etc., Ry. v. Parsons, 74 Fed. 411, 40 U. S. App. 13, where draw was 125 instead of 130 feet wide in clear.

125 U. S. 273-309

Notes on U. S. Reports.

522

Distinguished in Gildersleeve v. New York, etc., R. Co., 82 Fed. 766, holding projection of riprap foundation below low-water line did not render bridge illegal.

Courts. Instruction that bridge liable to damaged vessel if not built as Congress directed, not a Federal question, p. 272.

125 U. S. 273-309, 31 L. 747, UNITED STATES v. SAN JACINTO TIN CO.

--

Statutes. Phraseology familiar in English law is presumably used with reference thereto, p. 280.

United States may sue in any competent court to cancel land patent for fraud, p. 282.

Reaffirmed in United States v. Wallamet Val., etc., R. Co., 44 Fed. 240, affirming S. C., 14 Sawy. 488, 42 Fed. 358. Approved in In re Debs, 158 U. S. 584, 39 L. 1102, 15 S. Ct. 906, upholding power of United States to remove obstruction to interstate commerce, by suit; United States v. World's Columbian Exposition, 56 Fed. 640, holding United States may maintain bill to secure enforcement of public duty.

Distinguished in United States v. Joint Traffic Co., 76 Fed. 898, holding United States cannot maintain bill to prevent association of railroads from carrying out agreement in alleged violation of interstate commerce law.

Attorney-General may sue in United States name, to set aside land patents for fraud, mistake, etc., p. 285.

Reaffirmed in United States v. Beebe, 127 U. S. 342, 343, 32 L. 123, 8 S. Ct. 1085, 1086, In re Neagle, 135 U. S. 66, 34 L. 72, 10 S. Ct. 669, reprinted in 14 Sawy. 307 (but see dissenting opinion in 135 U. S. 85, 34 L. 79, 10 S. Ct. 676), and Germania Iron Co. v. United States, 58 Fed. 335, 19 U. S. App. 10. Approved in San Pedro, etc., Co. v. United States, 146 U. S. 132, 36 L. 915, 13 S. Ct. 97, holding United States may maintain suit to cancel patent, when it has direct pecuniary interest in result; In re Debs, 158 U. S. 585, 39 L. 1103, 15 S. Ct. 906, holding relief granted at instance of United States not limited to cases in which it has pecuniary interest.

United States may set aside land patent only when itself interested, not for one of rival claimants, p. 286.

Reaffirmed in Curtner v. United States, 149 U. S. 671, 37 L. 893, 13 S. Ct. 988, United States v. Missouri, etc., Ry., 141 U. S. 381, 35 L. 773, 12 S. Ct. 21, affirming S. C., 37 Fed. 72, United States v. Des Moines Val. R. Co., 84 Fed. 43, 55 U. S. App. 254, affirming S. C., 70 Fed. 438, and United States v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 3 Okl. 474, 41 Pac. 752. Approved in Scott v. Lockey Inv. Co., 60 Fed. 35, 37, holding individual cannot maintain action for annulment of patent because of fraud on government; Union Pac. Ry. v. United States, 67 Fed. 980. 32 U. S. App. 311, holding United States, when nominal

523

Notes on U. S. Reports.

125 U. S. 309-336

plaintiff, subject to same defenses as real party in interest; Horsky v. Moran, 21 Mont. 366, 53 Pac. 1071, holding one not in privity with government cannot attach townsite patent collaterally; South End Min. Co. v. Tinney, 22 Nev. 34, 35 Pac. 93, holding remedy for dispossession of patented land, does not depend on attorney-general's action.

Cancellation for fraud or mistake will only be granted on clear convincing proof, never on preponderance, p. 300.

Approved in United States v. Bell Tel. Co., 128 U. S. 366, 367, 32 L. 461, 9 S. Ct. 96, and United States v. Bell Tel. Co., 167 U. S. 240, 42 L. 154, 17 S. Ct. 810, affirming S. C., 68 Fed. 566, 33 U. S. App. 236, applying rule to suit to cancel patent for invention; Cragin v. Powell, 128 U. S. 699, 32 L. 568, 9 S. Ct. 206, holding land office's decision not attackable collaterally; United States v. Marshall Min. Co., 129 U. S. 588, 32 L. 738, 9 S. Ct. 346, holding court will not set aside patent unless there has been gross mistake or fraud; United States v. Budd, 43 Fed. 634, holding United States seeking relief from equity, bound by rules thereof; Stimson Land Co. v. Rawson, 62 Fed. 429, and United States v. King, 83 Fed. 191, 48 U. S. App. 546, both holding government suing for cancellation, must clearly establish fraudulent issuance; United States v. King, 9 Mont. 79, 22 Pac. 498, holding proof that land was deemed valuable for minerals, sufficient in action to cancel mineral patent.

125 U. S. 309–336, 31 L. 721, CLEMENT v. PACKER.

Appeal.- Exception to rejection of land patents is unavailing, if record does not contain copies of them, p. 320.

Approved in Ladd v. Missouri Coal, etc., Co., 66 Fed. 882, 32 U. S. App. 93, holding bill of exceptions must state what rejected evidence was intended to prove.

Evidence. English rule, rejecting declarations of deceased as to private boundaries, prevails here, pp. 321-324.

Approved in Ayers v. Watson, 137 U. S. 596, 34 L. 809, 11 S. Ct. 206, holding memorandum of public surveyor in Texas, admissible. Courts. Supreme Court follows State rules as to ownership of land therein, p. 322.

Approved in Comstock v. Tracey, 46 Fed. 170, holding State decisions establishing rules of property, binding on Federal courts.. Boundaries.- Pennsylvania rule as to boundaries and surveys of block, etc., stated, pp. 327, 328.

Boundaries. After twenty-one years, warrant is presumed l☛ cated as returned; but this is rebuttable, p. 336.

Distinguished in Schræder Min. Co. v. Packer, 129 U. S. 697, 32 L. 763, 9 S. Ct. 388, holding, after survey of Pennsylvania public land has been retained over twenty-one years, it is conclusively presumed legal.