Huntington

This is an action to quiet title to a quarter-section of land near Del Sur, Los Angeles County, within the overlapping United States land grant to the Atlantic & Pacific Railway, made by Congress in 1866 (14 U. S. Stats. 292) in aid of its proposed railroad from the Colorado River to the Pacific Ocean, and the grant made in 1871 (16 U. S. Stats. 573) to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company for its “branch line” from Tehachapi to Yuma via Los Angeles. The latter grant was void as to lands in the overlapping grants, and in 1886 the rights of the former reverted to the United States, and the land was restored to the public domain (24 U. S. Stats. 123; United States v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 146 U. S. 570 , [ 36 L. Ed. 1091 , 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152]; United States v. Colton Marble & Lime Co., 146 U. S. 615 , [ 36 L. Ed. 1104 , 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 163]; S outhern Pacific R. R. Co. v. United States, 183 U. S. 519 , [ 46 L. Ed. 307 , 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 154]; United States v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 184 U. S. 49 , [ 46 L. Ed. 425 , 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 285, see, also, Rose’s U. S. Notes].) Plaintiff claims under the grant to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company and the defendant under a…

I concur for the following reasons: The plaintiff and the defendants claim under conflicting rights from the United States. The plaintiff’s chain of title runs back to a patent by the government to the Southern Pacific Railroad Company. That patent was void, but by the act of Congress of March 2, 1896 (29 U. S. Stats. 42), the title of any bona fide purchaser for valhe from the Railroad Com *754 pany was confirmed to Mm. This act was in effect a grant to bona fide purchasers for value of such portions of the land as they had purchased from the Railroad Company. All other lands covered by the patent were public lands open to entry.

The defendants claim under entry upon the particular lands in question here as public lands open to entry, the entry being made in 1910. No question is made but that if these lands were in fact public lands when entry was so made, the entry was valid and the defendants have the superior, right. It is evident that whether or not they were public lands open to entry turns on whether or not at that time the title or claim of title of the Railroad Company had come into the hands of a bona, fide purchaser for value. The plaintiff purchased subsequently,' so…