and in what it consisted; Hardt v. Heidweyer, 152 U. S. 559, 38 L. 552, 14 S. Ct. 674, holding stale claim failing to show how knowledge of fraud was obtained is demurrable; Carr v. Hilton, 1 Curt. 391, F. C. 2,437, holding to avoid bar of statute, complainant must not only allege ignorance of fraud, but how it was discovered; Moore ▼. Greene, 2 Curt. 205, F. C. 9,763, holding in Rhode Island bill must allege fraud was discovered within twenty years, and show when and how it was discovered; United States v. White, 17 Fed. 565, and Fairbanks v. Amoskeag National Bank, 38 Fed. 633, collecting cases, and holding there must be distinct averments as to the time when fraud was discovered, and what the discovery was; Eiffert v. Craps, 58 Fed. 473, 8 U. S. App. 436, holding claim for recovery of lands forty years old must be held guilty of laches when fraud might have been discovered; Halsey v. Cheney, 68 Fed. 767, 768, 34 U. S. App. 50, holding, under facts stated, there had been gross laches; Lant v. Manley, 71 Fed. 15, holding facts stated constituted gross laches; Hubbard v. Manhattan Trust Co., 87 Fed. 60, 57 U. S. App. 745, holding there must be distinct averments as to the time of discovery of fraud, how knowledge was obtained and why it was not obtained earlier; Paulling v. Creagh, 54 Ala. 654, holding complainant will not be relieved from imputation of laches upon a general allegation of ignorance; Hiatt v. Auld, 11 Kan. 185, holding allegations of ignorance too late after trial where statute has been set up as a bar; Rogers v. Van Nortwick, 87 Wis. 429, 431, 58 N. W. 762, 763, holding financial embarrassments and complication of plaintiff's affairs, with interests of defendant, not sufficient excuse for laches; Melms v. Papst, etc., Co., 93 Wis. 174, 57 Am. St. Rep. 912, 66 N. W. 524, holding in action to set aside conveyances for fraud, plaintiff must show he has not been guilty of laches. See valuable note on pleading of laches and fraud, 2 Am. St. Rep. 807.

7 How. 833-894, 12 L. 934, UNITED STATES v. KING.

In Federal courts the distinction between courts of law and of equity is preserved in Louisiana, as well as in other States, and the removal of the case from the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court is regulated by act of Congress, not by the practice of Louisiana, p. 844.

Appeal and error.- The writ of error, by which alone a case can be removed from a Circuit Court, when sitting as a court of law, brings up for revision nothing but questions of law, and where there is no jury, no exception can be taken where the question of law is decided in delivering the final judgment of the court, pp. 844, 853.

Cited and followed in Prentice v. Zane, 8 How. 486, 12 L. 1167, refusing to revise evidence on writ of error; Weems v. George, 13. How. 197, 14 L. 111, refusing to entertain bill of exceptions upon decision of Louisiana court; Burr v. Des Moines, etc., Co., 1 Wall. 103, 17 L. 563, holding case stated must show facts, not evidence; Insurance Co. v. Folsom, 18 Wall. 249, 21 L. 833, holding nothing is open to re-examination except rulings duly presented by bill of exceptions; The Abbottsford, 98 U. S. 442, 25 L. 169, holding findings of fact by Circuit Courts in admiralty cases conclusive; Martinton v. Fairbanks, 112 U. S. 675, 28 L. 864, 5 S. Ct. 323, holding where only exception is to general finding of court, no question of law is presented; Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S. 666, 38 L. 308, 14 S. Ct. 455, refusing to review judgment on facts of highest State court; Locke v. United States, 2 Cliff. 577, F. C. 8,442, holding no fact tried by a jury can be re-examined except by common-law rules; Key West v. Baer, 66 Fed. 443, 30 U. S. App. 140, holding "rulings" refers only to rulings on admissibility of evidence; White v. Thacker, 78 Fed. 865, 41 U. S. App. 745, wherein Circuit Court of Appeals refuses to inquire into correctness of special findings; Barnes v. Mobile, 19 Ala. 709, holding appellate court cannot revise findings given where jury is waived by stipulation; Lynch v. Grayson, 7 N. Mex. 34, 32 Pac. 151, holding where jury is waived, Supreme Court should not pass on sufficiency of facts found.

Cited with approval in Barreda v. Silsbee, 21 How. 161, 16 L. 93, holding only means of re-examining findings of a jury are by new trial; Boogher v. Insurance Co., 103 U. S. 95, 26 L. 311, quære, does act of 1872 authorize review where facts below were found by referee?

Distinguished in Surgeft v. Lapice, 8 How. 65, 12 L. 989, holding upon facts stated appeal was the proper course, and not removal from State court by writ of error.

Ejectment - Federal courts. - In a petitory action under the practice in Louisiana, being in the nature of ejectment in a court of common law, the plaintiff may recover possession, or a defendant defend himself under an equitable title, but in courts of the United States, where the distinction between law and equity is maintained, an equitable title is no defense to the action, pp. 846, 847.

Cited and followed in Gilmer v. Poindexter, 10 How. 267, 13 L. 415, holding in petitory action in Louisiana removed to Federal court, claimant must recover on legal title.

Louisiana purchase. - Under the treaty with Spain, the United States acquired in sovereignty all the lands in Louisiana which had not before been granted by the Spanish government and severed as private property from the royal domain. This made it incumbent upon the claimants to show that the land in question had been so granted by Spanish authorities; otherwise the United States were entitled to it, p. 847.

Cited and followed in D'Auterive v. United States, 101 U. S. 705, VOL. IV-48

25 L. 871, holding the burden was on appellant to show land claim had been granted before treaty.

Trial grants. The question whether certain instruments in writing pass title is a question of law to be decided by the court, and it is altogether immaterial to inquire what acts were performed under it, as they cannot affect the construction, p. 847.

Cited with approval in Fremont v. United States, 17 How. 575, 15 L. 253, in dissenting opinion, majority holding laws of Spain and Mexico prior to cession of land to the United States not question of fact as foreign laws; Arguello v. United States, 18 How. 550, 15 L. 483, in dissenting opinion, majority affirming Mexican grant to Arguello Heirs. Cited, arguendo, in dissenting opinion, Sawyer v. Town of Skowhegan, 57 Me. 513.

Spanish grants.-- In 1795 a contract was entered into between the Baron de Carondelet and Marquis de Maison Rouge, afterwards approved by the king of Spain, under which Maison Rouge was to procure thirty families for a settlement on the Washita river; in 1797, the work having been about completed, another instrument was executed marking off a certain tract of land "distinct and appropriate" for the uses of the settlement. These instruments being construed together, it was held that there was no grant, nor severance of title from the Spanish sovereignty, as to one claiming adversely to the United States through Maison Rouge, pp. 847, 848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 853.

Cited and followed in United States v. Philadelphia and New Orleans, 11 How. 653, 13 L. 852, holding contract between Baron de Bastrop and Spanish government did not vest title in Bastrop; United States v. Turner, 11 How. 664, 665, 666, 667, 13 L. 857, 858, affirming and explaining the principal case; United States v. Coxe, 17 How. 43, 15 L. 77, decided as indistinguishable from principal case; Suggestion of Coxe, 15 La. Ann. 514, holding the Maison Rouge title null.

Cited and distinguished in Arguello v. United States, 18 How. 547, 15 L. 481, holding the Arguello grant in California a direct one to the person, not one to impressarios or pobladors.

Government cannot be sued without its consent, hence no judgment can be given against the government upon a plea in reconvention, p. 854.

Appeal and error.- Where a judgment is erroneous in any view, the appellate court will not construe it; nor will it examine immaterial errors, pp. 854, 855.

Miscellaneous. - Principal case cited in Jones v. McMasters, 20 How. 22, 15 L. 811, holding court of law, where grant from government regular in form, will not inquire into its equitable considerations.