Brandt

This is a suit in equity, and yet the Court rendered judgment on the general verdict of a jury.

The action cannot be maintained. The complaint charges that the defendant is seeking to purchase the land from the United States. This he had a right to do under the Acts of Congress. (See secs. 2325 and 2326 of the Bevised Statutes of the United States.)

The complaint nowhere attempts to say or show that the defendant’s' application to purchase was not fairly and legally made, nor that he had not acquired an actual right of purchase binding upon the United States under its existing law.

The land being public mineral land of the United States, Congress could dispose of it as it chose. It could order it sold to a person out of possession as well as to a person in possession. (Doran v. C. P. B. B. Co., 24 Cal. 253 to 257.)

This right of purchase exercised by the defendant, and se *432 cured by making a, regular application and taking the proper steps to effect the purchase, all done under an Act of Congress not repealed, but in full force and effect, was such a right and interest in the land as the law recognizes and protects. (Hess v. JBolinger, 48 Cal. 349 ; Hinckley v. Fowler, 43…