Pible lenda - Grantee under ovnfirmed Mexican car. rë ejecide quantity of land in California, lying within larger area, wa wati) segregation by government, entitled to possession of whaờ: 1 as tenant in common, with government, as against stranges. 1. 105. Approved in McCreery v. Haskell, 119 C. S. 333, 30 L L 7 S Ot. 179.

Distinguished in Northern Pac. Ry. v. Hussey, 61 Fed 24 35 C. 8. App. 301, holding land-grant company not tenant in common with government, in respect to unsurveyed lands within is grant limits; United States v. Northern Pac. Ry., 6 Mont. 367, 12 Par 772, holding government and railroad, tenants in severalty, under grant to Northern Pacific railway.

Public lands. Where selections by State, under United Sures grant thereto, have been approved by government, land officers have no jurisdiction to review regularity of proceedings between State and its grantees, or its locating agents, or to determine whether State laws regarding sale of lands, have been compled with, p. 112.

Approved in Mower v. Fletcher, 116 U. S. 384, 29 L. 594, 6 S. CL 411, holding questions of irregularity in selection of lieu lands by Issuance to State of certified lists; McCreery v. Haskell, 119 U. S 332, 80 L. 409, 7 S. Ct. 179, arguendo.

Public lands. Under act of July 23, 1866, it was duty of surveyor-general of California to extend lines of public surveys over

confirmed Mexican grants, upon failure of grantees to have same surveyed, and after setting off quantity confirmed remainder not included in grant became subject to general land laws, p. 113.

Approved in McCreery v. Haskell, 119 U. S. 334, 30 L. 410, 7 S. Ct. 180, holding land without grant as surveyed, subject to State selection in lieu of lands covered by granc; Durand v. Martin, 120 U. S. 369, 30 L. 677, 7 S. Ct. 589, reaffirming rule; Horsky v. Moran, 21 Mont. 363, 53 Pac. 1070, holding townsite patent not attackable, collaterally; Mower v. Fletcher, 116 U. S. 385, 29 L. 594, 6 S. Ct. 412, generally.

Public lands.— Under act of April 23, 1866, surveys of confirmed Mexican grants became operative by approval of government surveyor-general for State and his filing of township plats in local land office, and lands thereby excluded from grant were thereafter subject to selection by State, or to pre-emption, p. 115.

Approved in McCreery v. Haskell, 119 U. S. 330, 30 L. 409, 7 S. Ct. 178, holding survey by surveyor-general for State, operative without approval of commissioner of general land office; Tubbs v. Wilhoit, 138 U. S. 144, 34 L. 890, 11 S. Ct. 282, approving same procedure, with respect to swamp lands.

Distinguished in Wells County v. McHenry, 7 N. Dak. 251, 74 N. W. 242, arguendo.

Public lands.- State's title to lands selected by it under government grant, listed thereto by commissioner of general land office, is as perfect as if resting on patent, p. 116.

Approved in Cragin v. Powell, 128 U. S. 699, 32 L. 568, 9 S. Ct. 206, holding courts cannot correct surveys of public lands, decisions of land office being conclusive, collaterally; Williams v. United States, 138 U. S. 516, 34 L. 1028, 11 S. Ct. 458, Curtner v. United States, 149 U. S. 675, 37 L. 894, 13 S. Ct. 990, Hough v. Buchanan, 27 Fed. 329, and Garrard v. Silver Peak Mines, 94 Fed. 984, all holding certified list to State transfers title effectively as patent; Noble v. Union, etc., Ry., 147 U. S. 172, 37 L. 126, 13 S. Ct. 273, holding determination of secretary of interior, that designated railroad is entitled to right of way over public land, not revocable by successor; Chandler v. Calumet, etc., Co., 149 U. S. 92, 37 L. 662, 13 S. Ct. 802, holding such certification, followed by State's conveyance to grantee, presents evidence of title, not open to parol attack; McCormick v. Hayes, 159 U. S. 346, 40 L. 175, 16 S. Ct. 42, and Rogers, etc., Works v. Emigrant Co., 164 U. S. 573, 41 L. 558, 17 S. Ct. 192, holding parol evidence inadmissible to show that land so certified was really swamp land; Deweese v. Reinhard, 61 Fed. 778, 19 U. S. App. 698, and Schieffery v. Tapia, 68 Cal. 186, 8 Pac. 879, holding one not in privity with United States, cannot attack listing to State; Buena Vista, etc., Co. v. Tulare, etc., Co., 67 Fed. 228. ing listing to State, lands selected for agricultural colleges, e determination that said lands are such ая

1

Patents. Where it appears from injunction bill that sole object to reissue is to enlarge claims of original patent, and over two years' unexplained delay has taken place, question of laches is one of law, available as upon general demurrer, p. 101.

Approved in Felix v. Patrick, 145 U. S. 332, 36 L. 726, 12 S. Ct. 867, holding cause for delay in asserting rights, must be distinctly averred; Leggett v. Standard Oil Co., 149 U. S. 292, 37 L. 741, 13 S. Ct. 904, holding reissue, expanding original claims, void; Wollensak v. Sargent, 151 U. S. 229, 38 L. 141, 14 S. Ct. 294, affirming S. C., 33 Fed. 843, sustaining demurrer to bill for infringement; West v. Rae, 33 Fed. 47, sustaining demurrer, where court, from common knowledge and examination of patent, sees that same is void; Ligowski, etc., Co. v. American, etc., Co., 34 Fed. 332, judicially noticing old and well-known device; Heaton, etc., Co. v. Schlochtmeyer, 69 Fed. 593, holding bill referring to letters-patent made formal profert thereof, considered on demurrer; Post v. Beacon, etc., Co., 89 Fed. 4, 50 U. S. App. 409, 410, holding Federal courts may consider defense of equitable estoppel, when assigned ore tenus, under general demurrer.

Miscellaneous.- Miscited in Hoe v. Kahler, 23 Blatchf. 366, 25 Fed. 279.

115 U. S. 102-116, 29 L. 311, FRASHER v. O'CONNOR.

Public lands. Grantee, under confirmed Mexican grant, of specific quantity of land in California, lying within larger area, was, until segregation by government, entitled to possession of whole area as tenant in common, with government, as against strangers, p. 108. Approved in McCreery v. Haskell, 119 U. S. 333, 30 L. 410, 7 S: Ct. 179.

Distinguished in Northern Pac. Ry. v. Hussey, 61 Fed. 234, 15 U. S. App. 391, holding land-grant company not tenant in common with government, in respect to unsurveyed lands within its grant limits; United States v. Northern Pac. Ry., 6 Mont. 367, 12 Pac. 772, holding government and railroad, tenants in severalty, under grant to Northern Pacific railway.

Public lands.- Where selections by State, under United States grant thereto, have been approved by government, land officers have no jurisdiction to review regularity of proceedings between State and its grantees, or its locating agents, or to determine whether State laws regarding sale of lands, have been complied with, p. 112.

Approved in Mower v. Fletcher, 116 U. S. 384, 29 L. 594, 6 S. Ct. 411, holding questions of irregularity in selection of lieu lands by Issuance to State of certified lists; McCreery v. Haskell, 119 U. S. 332, 30 L. 409, 7 S. Ct. 179, arguendo.

Public lands.- Under act of July 23, 1866, it was duty of surveyor-general of California to extend lines of public surveys over

confirmed Mexican grants, upon failure of grantees to have same surveyed, and after setting off quantity confirmed remainder not included in grant became subject to general land laws, p. 113.

Approved in McCreery v. Haskell, 119 U. S. 334, 30 L. 410, 7 S. Ct. 180, holding land without grant as surveyed, subject to State selection in lieu of lands covered by grant; Durand v. Martin, 120 U. S. 369, 30 L. 677, 7 S. Ct. 589, reaffirming rule; Horsky v. Moran, 21 Mont. 363, 53 Pac. 1070, holding townsite patent not attackable, collaterally; Mower v. Fletcher, 116 U. S. 385, 29 L. 594, 6 S. Ct. 412, generally.

Public lands.- Under act of April 23, 1866, surveys of confirmed Mexican grants became operative by approval of government surveyor-general for State and his filing of township plats in local land office, and lands thereby excluded from grant were thereafter subject to selection by State, or to pre-emption, p. 115.

Approved in McCreery v. Haskell, 119 U. S. 330, 30 L. 409, 7 S. Ct. 178, holding survey by surveyor-general for State, operative without approval of commissioner of general land office; Tubbs v. Wilholt, 138 U. S. 144, 34 L. 890, 11 S. Ct. 282, approving same procedure, with respect to swamp lands.

Distinguished in Wells County v. McHenry, 7 N. Dak. 251, 74 N. W. 242, arguendo.

Public lands.- State's title to lands selected by it under government grant, listed thereto by commissioner of general land office, is as perfect as if resting on patent, p. 116.

Approved in Cragin v. Powell, 128 U. S. 699, 32 L. 568, 9 S. Ct. 206, holding courts cannot correct surveys of public lands, decisions of land office being conclusive, collaterally; Williams v. United States, 138 U. S. 516, 34 L. 1028, 11 S. Ct. 458, Curtner v. United States, 149 U. S. 675, 37 L. 894, 13 S. Ct. 990, Hough v. Buchanan, 27 Fed. 329, and Garrard v. Silver Peak Mines, 94 Fed. 984, all holding certified list to State transfers title effectively as patent; Noble v. Union, etc., Ry., 147 U. S. 172, 37 L. 126, 13 S. Ct. 273, holding determination of secretary of interior, that designated railroad is entitled to right of way over public land, not revocable by successor; Chandler v. Calumet, etc., Co., 149 U. S. 92, 37 L. 662, 13 S. Ct. 802, holding such certification, followed by State's conveyance to grantee, presents evidence of title, not open to parol attack; McCormick v. Hayes, 159 U. S. 346, 40 L. 175, 16 S. Ct. 42, and Rogers, etc., Works v. Emigrant Co., 164 U. S. 373, 41 L. 558, 17 S. Ct. 192, holding parol evidence inadmissible to show that land so certified was really swamp land; Deweese v. Reinhard, 61 Fed. 778, 19 U. S. App. 698, and Schieffery v. Tapia, 68 Cal. 186, 8 Pac. 879, holding one not in privity with United States, cannot attack listing to State; Buena Vista, etc., Co. v. Tulare, etc., Co., 57 Fed. 228, holding listing to State, lands selected for agricultural colleges, conclusive determination that said lands are such as

covered by grant; United States v. Winona, etc., Ry., 67 Fed. 955, 32 U. S. App. 272, holding certification to State for benefit of railroad, has effect of patent; Mower v. Kemp, 42 La. Ann. 1018, 8 So. 832, holding lands so granted, pass into domain of private property; Broussard v. Pharr, 48 La. Ann. 232, 19 So. 273, arguendo.

Distinguished in Michigan, etc., Co. v. Rust, 168 U. S. 593, 42 L 592, 18 S. Ct. 209, holding title remains in governinent, where granting act specifically provides for issuance of patent.

115 U. S. 116, 29 L. 316, GOOD v. O'CONNOR.

Adjudged in conformity with Frasher v. O'Connor, supra, q. ▼.

115 U. S. 116-121, 29 L. 309, GRAY v. NATIONAL S. S. CO.

Corporations. Company organized to continue, and buying bustness of, former company, upon same going into liquidation, is not chargeable with payment of judgment against former, for damages for collision by vessel, subsequent to its transfer to new company, p. 121.

Cited in 59 Am. St. Rep. 550, note.

115 U. S. 122-136, 29 L. 305, BUNCOMBE COUNTY v. TOMMEY. Railroads being legal highways, established for convenience of public, intent of legislature to subject them to ordinary liens, will not be presumed; hence, North Carolina acts of 1870, creating me chanics' liens on ‘buildings — or any other kind of property, not herein enumerated," and of 1873, regulating sales under mortgages by corporations, do not create liens on railroads, for work performed or materials furnished in construction thereof, pp. 127, 129, 130.

Approved in Industrial, etc., Co. v. Electrical, etc., Co., 58 Fed. 741, holding general lien law of Ohio, gives no right to lien upon railroad; Pennsylvania Steel Co. v. Potts, etc., Co., 63 Fed. 13, 15, 22 U. S. App. 537, similarly construing Michigan lien law, acts of 1885; Farmers' Loan, etc., Co. v. Cape Fear, etc., Ry., 73 Fed. 715, holding railroad's mortgage of unbuilt portion, precedes contractor's lien thereon; Greenwood, etc., Ry. v. Strang, 77 Fed. 500, holding railroad not subject to liens, under South Carolina lien law; Cleveland, etc., Ry. v. Knickerbocker, etc., Co., 86 Fed. 74, holding lien on railroad bridge in Ohio, obtainable only under railroad lien law; Eufaula Water Co. v. Addyston, etc., Co., 89 Ala. 560, 8 So. 28 doubting whether property of water company is liable to execution; Yellow River Imp. Co. v. Wood County, 81 Wis. 562, 51 N. W. 1096, 17 L. R. A. 95, and n., holding dam of quasi-public river improvement company improperly included in assessment of land on which located; Chicago, etc., Ry. v. Forest County, 95 Wis. 89, 70 N. W. 79. holding property necessary to operation of railroad, not seizable for taxes; dissenting opinion in Pipe, etc., Co. v. Howland, 111 N. C.