Court Opinion

ID: 9417621
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:28:22.025576+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:30.513593
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Field
dissenting:
I am not able to agree with the majority of the court in their decision of this case. The lands in controversy fall within the limits of the grant to the Central Pacific Railroad Company; but by mistake and inadvertence of the.Land Department they were listed to the State of California. Discovering its mistake, the department refused to issue to the company a patent for the lands to which , it was entitled, until the erroneous listing to the State was set aside and annulled. The present bill was filed by the Attorney General for that purpose — and because of this-proceeding'and the -delay' of the company in waiting on its issue — instead of taking steps to enforce its rights at law for the land, this court now holds that it has lost the right to them ; and that as the United States have no interest- in the property, .except to. clear it of the cloud of the listings wrongly made, they ■cannot maintain the suit. The result, which produces simple injustice to the railroad company without wrong on its part, ought not in my judgment to be upheld.
*678In United States v. Hughes, 11 How. 568, a patent had been issued by mistake to Hughes in disregard of the prior rights, of one Goodbee and of parties deriving title under him. The-United States filed an information in the nature of a bill in equity against Hughes for the repeal and surrender of his patent, on the ground that its existence impaired the ability pf the government to fulfil its engagements to Goodbee. The case was before this court originally on demurrer, and it was held that the court had jurisdiction to annul the patent thus improvidently issued. When here a second time (4 Wall. 232) the court, reaffirming its first decision, said: “When this case was here on demurrer the patent was considered by the court to be a valid instrument, conveying the fee of - the-United States, -and, until annulled, as rendering them incapable of complying with their engagement to Goodbee or his. alienees. Whether regarded in that aspect, or as a void instrument, issued without authority, it prima facie passed the title, and, therefore^ it was the plain duty of the United States to seek to vacate and annul the instrument, to the end that their previous engagement might be fulfilled by the transfer of a clear title, the'only one intended for the purchaser by the act of Congress. The power of a .court of equity, by its decree to vacate and annul the patent, under the circumstances of this case, is undoubted. Relief, when deeds or other instruments are executed by mistake or inadvertence of agents, as well as upon false suggestions, is a common head of equity jurisprudence.”
Upon this doctrine the court below proceeded in this case, in order that the government might discharge its obligation to the railroad company. It is á. case where the government admits the error of its officers of the Land Department, acknowledges its obligation to correct it, and seeks to remove from its records the inadvertent and erroneous certification to the State of the lands, so that it may be able to issue a clear' title to the railroad company, the right of that company having been finally determined, and thus carry out the pledge of its grant.
There -was at no time an admission by the railroad- company *679of the correctness of the original action of the Land Department, or any acquiescence therein, but, insisting always upon the error of its proceedings, the company urged upon the department to correct them and issue to it the patent which the law authorized.
The case is not, in my judgment, within the doctrine of United States v. Beebe, 127 U. S. 338, which would exclude the interference of the United States, but is within the doctrine which there recognizes and upholds it. In that case the original claimant had rested on the action of the Land’ Department, and sought the assistance of the United States only after the lapse of 'nearly half a century, and it was held that the interference of the government, after such a lapse of time, was simply á proceeding to avoid the laches of the claimant and to give to him the benefit of its exemption from them. But it declared that a suit of the United States would lie to set aside a patent where the government was under an .obligation respecting the relief invoked. In this case the railroad company has not remained inactive, but upon a decision in its favor by the department, asked for its promised patent, which was only withheld because of the previous inadvertent and mistaken action of the government’s officers in issuing a certificate to the State. In. such circumstances the government, it seéms to me, ought not to be debarred the right to correct the mistake of its officers, by which alone the intention of the law'was defeated. I think the decree below should be affirmed.