The New York herald., 1867-03-15

our dissenting opinion the Of Van Alien The
Assessors read a. the last term, and do think It
necessary to repeat them THAT dissent 10 the
effect that these shares could not be thus taxed by the
States--REToRTERl
Orlcini opiniops-Pre-EmptionU Under the Act
Of 1Sf4-Annulment of Patcnr-The Govern
mcnt Should seek TO Annul when The Patent
Is n Bar 10 the Performance of Public Duty
The Power of n Court of Equity In tha
Premises-Judgment when Bar, &C., &c.
Dard A. Hughes appellant % the United States APP
peal from the Circuit Court Of the United states for the
Eastern District of Louisiana This action was brought
to vacaie patent issued by the government for certain
lands in the State OF Louisiana and to compel It's
render for cancellation The bin alleged that the patent
was issued 10 violation Of the rights OF private parties
who claimed by preempon and that its existence rem
dercd the government unable TO fulfil its engagements
to such partieA The facts sufficiently appear In the
opinion.
BY the Court-Nr. Justice Field delivering the
opinion by the act Of Congress- April II 1914, every
person who had inhabited and cultivated tract of land
lying in that portion Of the State Of louisiana which
had composed the Territory Of Orleans the Terri
tory Of Missouri, whore the land not right
fully claimed by any other person. and who had
not removed from the State Territory was
entitled to the right of pre-emption in the purchase
OF the land, under conditions and regulations pre-
certain settlers In Illinois Ths same right was extended
by the act to the legal representatives Of the original
the Register and Receiver Of the land oce Of the dis
trct 10 become purchaser Of tract supposed 10 con-
tain about hundred and sixty acres which had been
cultivated and occupied by one Beeae in 1918, under
whose settlement he claimed. Ills right TO pre-empt
the tract recognized by the officers and, TIE re-
to him. The land at this time designated as lot
number one, under special system Of surveys au-
thorzed by the act Of March g. 1871 II years
later before the general system OF surveys into ranges,
townships and sections was extended over tho country
division embraced about fifteen acres in excess over tho
hundred and sixty To this excess, part of the
orignal lot GOODIES right Of pre,smpton under tie
At the time he made this entry Goodbee was In the
and exclusive possession Of the premises and either be
sion and cultivated the lands and erected valuable and
permanent improvements thereon. In 1923 the Presi
dent, by his proclamation, ordered the sale of the
public lands of the district Tho proclamation
was general In its terms embracing all the lands with
or reserved but the parcels preempted or reserved
were designated by proper entries in the register Of tho
sna ose H the tract 9seasd y S was thus
took place. In 1896 Hughes entered this tract at private
sale, designating it by section township and range;he
Tho officers Of the Land ONCE overlooking from the dif
ference in its description the fact that the tract had
ticate of purchase and pay men upon which, in April
1s4l, patent was Issued by the United states It'll to
this patent and compel its surrender for cancela
on that the present suit is brought 1t proceeds upon
the ground that the patent ssued in violation Of the
rights OF Goodbee or parties deriving ute Under him.
meut to funl its engagements to him. BY the act Of
April 1914, the United States had extended to him The
privilege Of purchasing the land aud had prescribed the
mode Of proceeding to make the purchase and Ak the
price to be paid. When this mode was pursued and
the price was paid contract completed between
him and the government which the latter
bound 10 execute by a transfer OF the title. The
patent TO Hughes subsequently issued. stood in the
way OF an ehicien, and just execution of this con-
tract It's operation was either to divcst the United
mai tIe vhi low from,
their conveyance. When this case here on
demurrer III How, 6es: Jackson vs. Lawton,
10 JAM, '23 tho patent considered by the court
TO he valid instrument passing the fee Of the United
States and until annulled, rendering them incapable
aenees Whether regarded in that aspect, a void
instrument issued without authority, 1t certainly
prima facie translave Of the title therefore
the plain duty of the United States seek vacate
annu the instrument to the end that their previous
title the only title intended for the purchaser BY the act
Of Congress And the power Of court Of equity by its
decree to vacate and annu the patent under the crcun
stances Of this case is undoubed ReIie when deeds
other instruments executed by mistake nadver
ence of agents, well upon false suggestions. is
tee Cannot complain Of the proceeding for the cpen
notorious aud exclusive possession OF the premises by
made his entry and received tho patent was suicient
to- pu, shim upon inquiry TO the interests legal
equitable held by them; and If he neglected to make
the inquiry he is entitled to any consdera-
tion than he had made and ascertaned the actual
facts of the case. The judgments by Hughes
in the State Court Of Lou action brought
by him AGAINST Sewall, and ono IN action brought
against him BY scwa and Hudson-oons,ltuicd no Lar
to this suit The first case was cec,mont against sewai
who was at the tme in the occupation of the land.
aps hs nS I'm, sSo cou, afess esd
that form Of action, go behind the patent and in
quirc into the equities of the parties On appeal the
state hut accompanied with stay Of execution
un tho validity of tho patent should udcIaly
by sewall and Hudson claimants under Goodbee, having
for its object the vacation OF the patent the annumen