525
9. To the benefit of that complete action the
officer is entitled when he on his part fulfills the
conditions imposed by law, as giving a bond and
taking the oath.
464
9. Where there is no bill of exceptions, assign-
ment of error, or anything to revise opinion of
court below, and the cause has been brought
to this court solely for delay, the judgment will be
affirmed with ten per cent. per annum damages
and costs.
899
10. When a cause is reached in its regular order.
Feb. 1, and submitted by defendant in error, no
one appearing for plaintiff, and decided Feb. 24,
and on Feb. 26 court adjourned to April, a motion
then made to open the judgment and hear the cause,
10. Postmaster's bond takes effect when accepted is too late, there having been up to that time no
-evidence that it applies to other appointment in-appearance by plaintiff in error.
admissible postmaster's commission takes effect
899
when commission placed with Postmaster-General 11. In action by treasurer of a State, the citation
-officer entitled to it on taking oath and giving on a writ of error is to be served on such treasurer,
bond-President's subsequent death does not af not on Governor and Attorney-General.
fect it.
Idem.
11. Until that time it is only an offer or proposal
which became complete by acceptance.
525
12. At the time the bond in this case was ac-
cepted, the first appointment had been superseded
by the second appointment.
Poydras de La Lande v. Treasurer of
Louisiana,
93
12. District Judge can make an order in a suit in
which he is interested for the removal of the cause
to a competent jurisdiction.
7. The appellee in a case from California can
have the case docketed and dismissed, if the tran-
cript of the record is not filed in this court within
Idem.
26. U. S. courts, in a suit at law, should exclude
all questions that belong exclusively to equity.
Jones v. McMasters,
805
290
2. To determine whether the act of the cashier
of a bank is valid, all the evidence relative to the
acts and authority of the cashier, should be brought
out and passed upon by the jury, under instruc-
tions from the court.
United States v. City Bank of Columbus, 662
3. His authority cannot be determined here upon
an isolated fact or act.
4. His authority does not necessarily depend on
the knowledge or express direction of the directors.
Idem.
662
5. It is the duty of the court to construe written
instruments, but their application to external ob-
jects described, is for the jury.
Richardson v. City of Boston,
6. Thus the situation of the points called for, as
the boundary of a street, is a question for the
jury.
Idem.
639
7. So, whether a drain was carried out sufficiently
to discharge its contents so as to be swept off by
the tides, or whether it caused an accumulation at
end of plaintiff's wharves, so that vessels could not
approach them with the same depth of water as
formerly, are questions for the jury.
639
8. What is color of title is a question of law on
the facts. What is good faith in one claiming un-
der such color, is a question of fact for the jury.
Wright v. Mattison,
280
9. The presumption of dedication of lands to the
public use, is a question of fact for the jury, and
not of law, under instructions as to what facts will
justify such presumption. Principles on which
such presumption may be found stated.
10. Where the court left it to the jury to deter-
mine whether the land lay in the empresa of Mar-
tin De Leon, there was no error.
5. A judgment is conclusive only upon a matter
within the issue and necessarily involved in the
decision.
6. A judgment between same parties, in which a
claim for plaintiff was decided, or was properly
involved and might have been there raised and
determined, is a bar to another action for the same
395
7. The neglect of the plaintiff to avail himself of
it furnishes no reason for another litigation.
Idem.
2. He may build upon and inclose them. But
while they are covered with the sea, the public
have the right to use them for purposes of navi-
gation.
Idem.
118
3. The State, also, to prevent encroachments in
the harbors, may establish lines and limit this
power of the owner over his own property.
Idem.
118
4. The City of Boston owns such portions of the
territory occupied by it, as have not been disposed
of.
118
5. Such city has the right, on its own lands, to
extend sewers for drainage to low water mark,
discharging them into the sea.
118
2. A patent cannot be collaterally avoided at
law for fraud.
650
3. Where certain owners of land bordering on
any river or water-course, in a territory, were
given a preference, by Congress, in purchasing
vacant back lands adjacent, and the surveyor of
public lands was authorized, whenever each front
owner could not obtain a tract of back land equal
to his front tract, to divide such vacant lands be-
tween the several claimants in such manner as may
be to him might appear equitable, courts cannot
control the surveyor's acts if honestly performed.
Haydel v. Dufresne,
4. An appeal from the surveyor's decision can be
taken to the Commissioner of the General Land
Office, and from the latter's decision to the Secre-
tary of the Treasury.
5. Neglect to procure survey and location of out
lot in St. Louis under Act of 1824, did not impair
or forfeit title acquired under Act of 1812.
Savignac v. Garrison,
290
6. The questions, whether or not the lot, and the
inhabitation, cultivation or possession thereof,
was within the purview of the Act of 1812, are for
the jury. Idem.
290
7. This court concur in the opinion of the Board
of Commissioners and of the District Court, that
affirms the grant of the Governor of California to
Justo Larios.
944
8. This court rejects the words, "a little more or
less," and holds the claim of the grantce is valid
for the quantity clearly expressed.
Idem.
944
9. There is no rule of law to authorize this court
to depart from the grant to obtain evidence to con-
tradict, vary, or limit its import.
25. Code of Minnesota enables its court of chan-
cery to pass the title of lands by proceedings in
rem without any act of defendant.
886.
31. The title remains after the new government
the same as before.
Idem.
805
32. The title of the board of public schools, un-
der such certificate setting apart the lands, is su-
perior to a title under a prior entry with the reg-
ister and receiver, under the preemption laws.
Kissell v. St. Louis Public School, 324
33. The title of such lands appropriated for edu-
cation vested in the city, and they were not the
subjects of sale.
Idem.
324
34. When Louisiana was acquired, the legal title
to lands included in the out boundary survey of
St. Louis, vested in the United States.
324
35. Congress could prescribe the terms on which
titles therein could be obtained, and designate, by
survey school lands therein.
324
36. Until such survey was completed, the towns,
under Acts of Congress, had an imperfect title
thereto.
Idem.
324
37. When the survey was completed designating
the school lands, they became vested in the au-
thorities of Missouri.
Idem.
Where one obtained a judgment for costs,
$39.10, against a firm in a suit by one of them in
the name of the firm, long after its dissolution, upon
which lands of a member of the firm, who was
ignorant of the suit, of 14,000 acres, worth from
forty to seventy thousand dollars, were sold by
direction of the attorney in the judgment, who be-
came the purchaser for the sum of $9.13%, and who
refused to accept in redemption of the lands a sum
tendered more than equal to the costs and ex-
penses. Held, that such sale and purchase of the
land was fraudulent and void, and will be set
aside.
48. Against the United States and the patentee,
such confirmations, when imposed as a condition in
the patent, are conclusive.
345
49. Manner of reviewing decision of register and
receiver, under preemption laws of 1830 and 1834.
Barnard v. Ashley,
50. How far the judgment of the register and re-
ceiver is conclusive. Where preemption right is
claimed against a subsequent title, the court will
51. Under the Occupant Law of June 19, 1834,
one could lawfully enter land, if in his possession
when the Act was passed, and he cultivated it in
1833.
Idem.
285
52. One who built a cabin in 1833, and in
January, 1834, sold his improvements and moved
away, and resided elsewhere in June, 1834, is
not entitled to preference of entry.
61. A public survey is necessary to locate and
sever from the public domain, the land.
Idem.
457
62. Until survey government can sell, although
the concession exists and may be surveyed on the
land sold.
Idem.
457
63. Where the boundaries of the claim are vague
and uncertain, before the survey and location,
government may sell any land not necessarily em-
braced within the tract confirmed and the pur-
chaser's title will prevail.
457
64. The 16th section of public lands in every
township in Missouri not sold or disposed of, was
granted by the United States for use of schools.
Ham v. Missouri,
334
65. The proviso of section 10 of Act of March 3,
1811, has no connection with lands granted for
schools.
334
66. Sales of these lands inconsistent with such
dedication, prohibited. Such 10th section and its
proviso refer only to sales of land intended for
67. A Spanish claim was rejected in 1811, and
seventeen years afterwards was confirmed by Con-
gress. Meanwhile a section included therein was
granted for use of schools to Missouri.
80. When the entry was in 1840, a transfer of the
entry and conveyance was valid and vested the
equitable title in transferee, which was not de-
feated by a subsequent patent to the transferor and
another.
Idem.
81. In 1749, a preemption right to islands in
1002
the Susquehanna River in Pennsylvania could
not be obtained by settlement.
82. This doctrine has continued to be recognized
as settled law in Pennsylvania for half a century.
We are bound to acquiesce in and follow their de-
cisions.
Idem.
83. The Act of March 3, 1823, required a survey
879
to be made of each lot confirmed and a plat thereof
forwarded to the Secretary.
84. The evidence of a United States survey is not
678
mere plat without any written description by
metes and bounds.
85. Neither the plat nor less proof that a written
678
description will make a record on which a patent
can issue.
86. Where there are two confirmations for same
678
land, the older must hold it.
87. The title to lands adjudged by commissioners
under the Act of March 3, 1807, does not attach un-
til the survey required in that Act has been made.
West v. Cochran,
110
88. Until such survey the claimant has no title
which will support an action of ejectment.
Idem.
89. The case of U. S. v. King, 7 How. 833, and
110
UJ. S. v. Turner, 11 How. 663, affirmed.
90. The Act of Congress of March 3d, 1823, con-
76
ferred on the grantee an incipient title, and reserved
to the Department of Public Lands, the authority
to settle the boundaries by actual survey.
91. When the surveys were made and approved
and recorded, it bound the parties to it, to wit: the
confirmee and the United States.
92. The California Act of March 26, 1851, makes
a direct grant of all lands of the kind mentioned
therein, which had been sold, registered, etc.
101. A description in a Mexican patent, "A tract
of land known by the name of El Cajin, near the
mission of San Diego," is not void for uncertainty.
U. S. v. Sutherland,
666
Cajin" near the mission of San Diego, to which the
102. To show it void for uncertainty, it must
be proved that there are two estates called "El
description would equally apply; in which case it
would be void for ambiguity.
Idem.
103. Or it must be proved that there is no es-
666
tate or property known by that name about San
Diego.
110. Defects in an entry and survey cannot be
taken advantage of at law.
ty of land surveyed within a territory, vests in the
111. A grant by government of a certain quanti-
902
grantee a present and immediate interest.
Frémont v. U. S..
241
ditions complied with.
112. A subsequent definite grant is not required
to give a vested interest, but only to show the con-
113. Omission to take possession, survey
241
build, does not declare the land forfeited to the
and
State.
Idem.
114. The Mexican Governor having dispensed
241
with a plan of boundaries, it must be presumed that
the power he exercised was lawful.
115. The impossibility of taking possession, sur-
241
93. Grant of Mexican claim not proved by pas-
turing or cutting timber-nor are such acts ground
of adverse claim.
94. Refusal of Governor to grant land to an-
|