Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/234/76/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:52:58+00:00

Document:
Findings of fact concurred in by two lower federal courts will not be disturbed by this Court unless shown to be clearly erroneous.
taken with notice of the fraudulent obtaining of coal lands under the homestead law.
Where the application and proof of an entryman is strictly ex parte, the proceedings are not adversary, and while the finding of the land officer may not be open to collateral attack, they are not conclusive, but only presumptively right, against the government in a suit to cancel the patent on the ground that it was obtained by fraud.
The facts, which involve the validity of patents for lands issued under the homestead law and claimed by the government to have been fraudulently obtained because the lands were known to be valuable for coal at the time, are stated in the opinion.
a decree for the government, and the circuit court of appeals, taking a like view of the evidence, affirmed the decree. 194 F. 59.
The rule is well settled that findings of fact concurred in by two lower courts will not be disturbed by this Court unless shown to be clearly erroneous. Stuart v. Haydon, 169 U. S. 1, 169 U. S. 14; Towson v. Moore, 173 U. S. 17, 173 U. S. 24; Dun v. Lumbermen's Credit Association, 209 U. S. 20; Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Railroad Commission, 232 U. S. 338. Applying the rule to the evidence in this case, we think the findings below should not be disturbed.
Only two of appellant's contentions merit special notice.
Without any uncertainty, the evidence demonstrated that the lands were known to be valuable coal lands when the homestead entries were made and commuted, and that the affidavits and proofs to the contrary, upon which the patents were procured, were false. Not only were the lands in a well known coal region and generally reputed to be coal lands, but a tunnel, slope, and other openings upon them, costing about $8,000, had disclosed that they contained coal of such quality and quantity as to render them valuable for coal mining. The entrymen so understood, and resorted to severe measures to keep coal prospectors off the lands.
examined by an engineer, who found and reported the tunnel and other openings disclosing the coal, and, following that report, the transaction was consummated on the theory that the lands were valuable for their coal contents. There was no claim that there was any development work or coal discovery after the entries were made, and it is quite apparent from what was said of the engineer's report that the tunnel and openings gave visible evidence that they were not recently made. Of course, the appellant was bound to take notice that the patentees with whom it was dealing had obtained the lands under the homestead law, for it was so recited in the patents. Simmons Creek Coal Co. v. Doran, 142 U. S. 417, 142 U. S. 437. In these facts there was, as we think, persuasive evidence that the appellant took the title with notice or knowledge of the fraud.
a suit, the action of the land officers is given appropriate effect by treating it as presumptively right, and as requiring the government to carry the burden of proving the fraud by the class of evidence which commands respect, and that amount of it which produces conviction. Diamond Coal & Coke Co. v. United States, 233 U. S. 236, 233 U. S. 239.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.