final homestead receipt before patent issues; Parsons v. Venzke, 4 N. Dak. 457, 50 Am. St. Rep. 671, 61 N. W. 1037, holding land commissioner has power to cancel entry, collecting authorities; Pierce v. Frace, 2 Wash. 97, 26 Pac. 196, holding same.

Distinguished in Smith v. Ewing, 11 Sawy. 62, 23 Fed. 745, holding certificate of purchase, duly issued to pre-emptor, cannot be cancelled by land department for alleged fraud; dissenting opinion, Pierce v. Frace, 2 Wash. 104, 26 Pac. 809, majority holding that land commissioner can cancel entry.

Equity will refuse to set aside a title where party has been in possession for sixteen years, under patent, and value of land has greatly increased, p. 325.

Cited and principle applied in Gibson v. Herriott, 55 Ark. 94, 29 Am. St. Rep. 22, 17 S. W. 591, holding unexplained delay of heirs, permitting improvements, bars their right to cancel purchase by administratrix.

Public lands.— Agreement between parties for a fraudulent entry of public land is contrary to public policy, and void; and where one party thereto afterwards made lawful entry and secured patent, the other cannot make this fraudulent agreement a basis for establishing a claim thereto, p. 325.

Distinguished in Purcell v. Lay, 84 Ala. 289, 4 So. 197, where part of land sold belongs to United States, an agreement of vendee to enter, provided vendor stood expense of perfecting title, is valid.

1 Black, 326-339, 17 L. 45, LAFLIN v. HERRINGTON.

Principal and agent.- Where attorney and agent of judgment creditor assigned certificate of sale obtained at execution sale, taking party's note, failure of judgment creditor to disaffirm is equivalent to a ratification, pp. 333–334.

No citations.

1 Black, 339-342, 17 L. 40, UNITED STATES ▼. COVILLAND.

Public lands.- Confirmation in name of original grantee divests the government's title, is binding on the government and on the assignees, and the title thus confirmed inures to the assignees or grantees, p. 341.

Public lands - California grants.- Patent having issued to claimant, his grantees or assignees cannot have a second patent for granted portions thereof, issued to them by land commissioners under act of 1851, p. 342.

Miscellaneous. Cited in United States v. Sutter, 27 Fed. Cas. 1377, as having confirmed the grant.

1 Black, 342--345, 17 L. 50, SINGLETON v. TOUCHARD.

Ejectment. An equitable title is no defense to action of ejectment, p. 344.

Cited in Bouldin v. Phelps, 12 Sawy. 315, 30 Fed. 561, and Lerma v. Stevenson, 40 Fed. 359, both holding in national courts legal title prevails in ejectment; Petty v. Mays, 19 Fla. 663, holding same.

Public lands

California grants.- United States patent, confirming a Mexican grant, is superior to a Mexican claim confirmed by the commissioners, but still pending in the courts, p. 345.

1 Black, 346-350, 17 L. 213, CLAGETT v. KILBOURNE.

Partnership. An association formed to purchase certain lands and to sell them, and after all expenses had been paid, to divide residue, is a partnership, p. 347.

Cited and principle applied in McElroy v. Swope, 47 Fed. 386. Hirbour v. Reeding, 3 Mont. 22, and Flower v. Barnekoff, 20 Or. 145, 25 Pac. 374, 11 L. R. A. 154, all holding partnership to deal in lands may be proved by parol evidence; Butterfield v. Beardsley, 28 Mich. 421, 426, treating as partners a joint-stock association embarked in a common undertaking for the common profit.

Partnership.- Real property belonging to partnership is treated in equity as part of partnership fund, p. 349.

Cited and applied in Riddle v. Whitehill, 135 U. S. 635, 34 L. 288. 10 S. Ct. 928, where partner purchases land with partnership funds and takes title in his own name, his possession is the possession of both; Weld v. Johnson Mfg. Co., 86 Wis. 560, 57 N. W. 377, holding that all partnership debts have not been paid is a good defense in action to recover land.

Partnership.- Judgment creditor of single partner may not levy upon his individual share, but the levy is upon such interest as remains after payment of partnership debts and other charges; he is substituted in the debtor's place and his remedy is an accounting in equity, p. 349.

Cited and principle applied in Young v. Dunn, 4 Woods, 333, 10 Fed. 719, where a partner devised certain property to partnership. held that survivor only took an equitable estate in property so devised; Daniel v. Owens, 70 Ala. 301, holding purchaser, under execution, levied against one partner, acquires only his individual interest; McNichol v. Phelps, 16 Fed. 10, holding purchaser of partner's interest at execution sale, may maintain bill for a division and accounting, though partner could not have filed such bill for want of requisite citizenship. Cited in 57 Am. St. Rep. 441, note, on levy on partnership assets of a writ against one partner only, collecting many cases. Cited in Kern v. Wyatt, 89 Va. 892, 17 S. E. 551 but not applied.

Distinguished in Coulson v. Nat. Bk., 54 Fed. 858, 18 U. &. App. 39, where defendant is a joint owner of goats, the proper method of levy is take possession of his half.

1 Black, 350-351, 17 L. 216, FARNEY v. TOWLE.

Supreme Court. On error to State court, it must appear that decision of State court was against the point raised, and that attention of the court was called to the particular clause of the Constitution on which party relied, p. 351.

Cited and principle applied in Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 550, 22 L. 490, holding assignment, that State court had held State statute constitutional, too general to give jurisdiction; O'Neil v. Vermont, 144 U. S. 335, 36 L. 457, 12 S. Ct. 698, dismissing writ of error, because record did not present a Federal question; Water P. Co. v. St. Ry. Co., 172 U. S. 488, 19 S. Ct. 252, where Federal question appears in the record or was necessarily involved, it need not be specifically set up. Cited as example of case where writ of error has been directed to subordinate court to which record has been remitted, in dissenting opinion in Underwood v. McVeigh, 131 U. S. cxxii, appx., 21 L. 954, majority dismissing writ because it should have been direct to Court of Appeals of Virginia.

1 Black, 352-358, 17 L. 91, CREWS v. BURCHAM.

Indians. Reservation in treaty with the Pottawatomie Indians, of 1832, creates an equitable interest to the land to be selected under treaty; and deed, upon selection of land and issuance of patent, vests title in grantee, p. 356.

Cited and principle applied in Elwood v. Flannigan, 104 U. S. 563, 26 L. 842, holding patent issued after death of chief, inured to his alienee; United States v. Reese, 5 Dill. 409, F. C. 16,137, holding that Congress has no constitutional right to interfere with rights under treaties, except in cases purely political; Ash-Kum v. Sorin. 10. Biss. 294, 295, 297, 8 Fed. 741, 742, 744, where government agrees to grant certain land, wife of grantee has right of dower, although patent is not issued until after grantee's death; Meehan v. Jones, 70 Fed. 455, treaty "setting apart land for an individual," vests such a title that, upon selection made, he can execute a valid lease; Quinney v. Denney, 18 Wis. 488, holding subsequently-issued patent inured to grantee of one to whom Congress had allotted land. Cited in Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. 247, 21 L. 535, but question not decided.

Distinguished in Prentice v. Stearns, 113 U. S. 446, 447, 28 L. 1063, 5 S. Ct. 553, where description in the deed differed from that in patent; Prentice v. N. Pac. R. R., 154 U. S. 175, 38 L. 952, 14 S. Ct 1002, holding there could be no recovery, as neither description sufficed to cover the lands; Prentice v. Nor. Pac. R. Co., 43 Fed.

275, holding that deed being for a specific tract, could not be construed to convey grantor's interest in the land actually patented to the Indian.

Deed.- Warranty estops grantor and his privies, and binds an after-acquired title, p. 357.

Cited in Ryan v. United States, 136 U. S. 88, 34 L. 455, 10 S. Ct. 920, holding, if one assuming to convey title, obligates himself to protect grantee, he cannot assert a title acquired afterwards.

Public lands.- Patent cannot be impeached by third party upon the claim controverted by the recitals in the patent, that lands granted were not within the territory ceded by the treaty, p. 357.

Equity. One holding legal title may file bill in equity to relieve title of clouds, and to restrain a multiplicity of suits, p. 358.

Cited and principle relied upon in Frost v. Spitley, 121 U. S. 556, 30 L. 1012, 7 S. Ct. 1131, holding bill in equity to quiet title not maintainable by one with equitable title; Dick v. Foraker, 155 U. S. 414, 39 L. 205, 15 S. Ct. 128, holding proceeding for sale of lands for unpaid taxes, without statutory notice, are void; Cent. Pac. R. R. Co. v. Dyer, 1 Sawy. 650, F. C. 2,552, holding court had jurisdiction to entertain bill to quiet title; Errett v. Crane, 8 Fed. Cas. 777, holding pendency in State court of ejectment against one cotenant, is no bar to suit by another co-tenant in Federal court against plaintiff in ejectment suit to quiet title; Harland v. B. & M. Tel. Co., 32 Fed. 308, holding equity will not entertain bill to try title to property in adverse possession, although seeking relief in the nature of removing clouds on title; Osborne v. Wis. Cent. R. Co., 43 Fed. 827, all actions involving the same issue, may be united in-equity to avoid multiplicity; Prentice v. Duluth Storage Co., 58 Fed. 441, 19 U. S. App. 100, all owners similarly situated may become parties to quiet title; Morse v. South, 80 Fed. 209, holding that Kentucky statute did not change equity rule that complainant in suit to quiet title must have legal title and possession; Tribette v. Railroad Co., 70 Miss. 188, 35 Am. St. Rep. 644, 12 So. 33. 19 L. R. A. 661, holding that equity cannot enjoin a number of separate actions at law, where plaintiffs have no community of interest; Davis v. Settle, 43 W. Va. 37, 26 S. E. 565, holding that equity, upon ground of removal of cloud from title, cannot try conflicting titles to land, held adversely. Cited, without particular application, in Dole v. Wilson, 20 Minn. 362.

Deeds. Where deed is duly recorded, and parties are in possession, this is notice to all, p. 358.

1 Black, 358-386, 17 L. 147, RICE v. THE MINN. & N. W. R. CO. Constitutional law. A vested right in lands created by a corporate charter, may not be repealed, p. 373.

Cited in 12 Am. Dec. 481, note on the effect of the repeal of a statute, collecting authorities.

Statutes.- Rules of common law govern in construing laws of Congress or of a State, pp. 374-375.

Cited in United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 311, 36 L. 446, 12 8. Ct. 609, holding that writ of error does not lie in behalf of United States in a criminal case; Loring v. Marsh, 2 Cliff. 320, F. C. 8,514, holding Federal courts adopt State court's construction of State statute.

Distinguished in Nash v. Sullivan, 29 Minn. 214, 12 N. W. 701, holding that intent of legislature cannot be defeated by applying rules of common law.

Public lands.- Patent, if void upon its face, issued without authority, or by State or territory, without title, may be collaterally impeached, p. 375.

Distinguished in Crane v. Reeder, 25 Mich. 313, holding that only the party injured by fraud can complain of it.

Statutes. In construing a statute, effect must be given to every part, pp. 378, 379.

Cited and applied in construing statutes by United States v. Debs, 64 Fed. 749, and N. & W. R. R. Co. v. Prindle, 82 Va. 132.

Railroads. Condition in act, granting lands to a territory to aid construction of a railroad, that no title shall vest in territory until twenty continuous miles of road be completed, shows that territory only acquired a naked trust or power of disposal in the lands, p. 379.

Cited and principle applied in St. Paul, etc., R. R. v. Nor. Pac. R. Co., 139 U. S. 6, 35 L. 79, 11 S. Ct. 390, holding act was a grant in præsenti, in the nature of a float, until route should be completed, except as to sections specifically reserved; United States v. Southern P. R. R., 146 U. S. 594, 36 L. 1097, 13 S. Ct. 155, and Han. & St. Jo. R. v. Smith, 41 Mo. 331, both holding that they were grants in præsenti, which, when maps were filed, took effect by relation, as of dates of statutes; Goodfellow v. Muckey, 1 McCrary, 245, F. C. 5,537, holding that Indian title was but a right of occupancy, and not a grant in præsenti; United States v. Childers, 8 Sawy. 175, 12 Fed. 589, holding grant to Northern Pacific Railway of odd-numbered section, for construction of road, left the legal title in the United States; Nor. Pac. R. R. Co. v. Majors, 5 Mont. 141, 144, 2 Pac. 335, 337, holding title of company did not attach, until route was designated; Brownsville v. Basse, 36 Tex. 501, holding that act passed a present beneficial interest which could not be destroyed by repealing act.

Distinguished in Schulenberg v. Harriman, 21 Wall. 62, 22 L. 555, holding that act passed title to odd sections, to be designated