Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/124/400/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:51:35+00:00

Document:
possession of the S.E. 1/4, and he and those under him remained in undisputed possession of it for more than 35 years. About 22 years after his entry, some person without authority of law changed the entry on the plat and tract books, and made it to show that his purchase was of the S.W. 1/4 instead of the S.E. 1/4, thus showing two entries of the S.W. 1/4. W. then, with full knowledge of all these facts, located agricultural scrip on this S.E. 1/4. S., or those claiming under him, did not discover the mistake until after W. had got his patent. Held that W. was a purchaser in bad faith, and that his legal title, though good as against the United States, was subject to the superior equities of S. and of those claiming under him.
the lands he had purchased, and he and those claiming under him have asserted title thereto, and paid taxes thereon, ever since; that afterwards the entries on the plat and tract books were changed without authority of law so as to show that his purchase had been of the S.W. 1/4 instead of the S.E. 1/4; that Widdicombe located his scrip on the S.E. 1/4, with full knowledge of all the facts, and that he now holds the legal title under his patent in trust for those claiming under Smith, whom the defendants represent in the suit. The prayer of the answer was that such trust might be established and Widdicombe decreed to convey the legal title to those who had acquired Smith's rights.
The trial court found the facts to be substantially as stated in the answer. The supreme court, on appeal, affirmed this finding, and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants requiring Widdicombe to convey in accordance with the prayer of the answer. From that judgment this writ of error was brought.
the records, and no one could have been misled by it unless he willfully shut his eyes to what was before him.
"I am plaintiff in this cause. I applied for and entered the land in controversy at the Boonville land office, as shown by my application in evidence, in the early part of 1871; never was in Clarke County, Mo., or the northeastern part of the state prior to June, 1874; never saw the Hampton map of Clarke County, referred to in evidence, prior to that time; never saw any records, other than the government or United States records, having reference to the land in controversy prior to that time. I had heard of no person claiming the land in controversy prior to the time I went to Clarke County in 1874. The defendant Childers was cutting timber upon the land when I went there in June, 1874, and was cutting about the middle of the tract, so he informed me."
"I discovered the southeast quarter 36, 64, 6 W., was vacant while employed in making an examination of the records to purchase for a party in Scotland County an 80-acre tract, where there were three applicants at the same time for the same piece of land, one of whom was the Sheriff of Scotland County. There had been a correction, alteration, or erasure -- call it as you please -- on the plat and tract books in the register's office, in section 36, township 64, range 6 west, and I saw it before I made the entry. In the plat book, whereon the numbers of entries are posted, in section 36, and on the southeast quarter of said section, there is a perceptible erasure. On the tract book the letter 'W,' in the Smith entry, appears to have been made with a heavy stroke of the pen, and has a much heavier and darker appearance than the letter 'S' preceding it, and has the appearance of having been changed from some other letter, and the letter 'E' is the only letter over which the letter 'W' could have been written so as to have formed a correct description of any other entry, either in that or any other section, or in the description of lands similarly situated."
had been for many years familiar with the books of the office and their contents, as well as with the way in which the business was done there. He must have known that the original entry by Smith was of the S.E. 1/4, and that it could not be changed to the S.W. 1/4 without putting the entry on a quarter-section that had already been bought and paid for. Under these circumstances, the conclusion is irresistible that he is legally chargeable with notice of Smith's prior entry, and of the rights which had been acquired under it. Such being the case, the judgment below was clearly right. There cannot be a doubt but that if the mistake in the written application and in the certificates of the register and receiver had been discovered before the patent was issued to Widdicombe, it would have been corrected in the land office upon proper application in that behalf. The error was one which arose from the mistake of the register, one of the officers of the local land office, and comes directly within the provisions of § 2369 of the Revised Statutes, which is a reenactment of the Act of March 3, 1819, 3 Stat. 526, c. 98, and in force from the time of the entry by Smith until now. The act of 1819 was extended by the Act of May 24, 1828, 4 Stat. 301. c. 96, to cases where patents had been or should be issued. This extension is now embraced in § 2370 of the Revised Statutes. Another statute, passed May 24, 1824, 4 Stat. 31, c. 138, now § 2372 of the Revised Statutes, authorizes similar relief.
are many and uniform. The holder of a legal title in bad faith must always yield to a superior equity. As against the United States, his title may be good, but not as against one who had acquired a prior right from the United States in force when his purchase was made under which his patent issued. The patent vested him with the legal title, but it did not determine the equitable relations between him and third persons. Townsend v. Greeley, 5 Wall. 326, 72 U. S. 335; Silver v. Ladd, 7 Wall. 219, 74 U. S. 228; Meader v. Norton, 11 Wall. 442, 78 U. S. 458; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72, 80 U. S. 87; Carpentier v. Montgomery, 13 Wall. 480, 80 U. S. 496; Shepley v. Cowan, 91 U. S. 330, 91 U. S. 340; Moore v. Robbins, 96 U. S. 530, 96 U. S. 535; Wirth v. Branson, 98 U. S. 118, 98 U. S. 121; Marquez v. Frisbie, 101 U. S. 473, 101 U. S. 475.

References: § 2369
 § 2370
 § 2372
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.