United States v. Bellingham Bay Improvement Co.

(after stating the facts as above). To eases of the general character of that before us, where the government seeks to cancel a patent on the ground that it has been obtained through deception, perjury, and fraud, the doctrine announced in Bailey v. Glover, 88 U. S. (21 Wall.) 342 , 22 L. Ed. 636 , Exploration Co. v. United States, 247 U. S. 435 , 38 S. Ct. 571 , 62 L. Ed. 1200 , and United States v. Diamond Coal Co., 255 U. S. 323 , 41 S. Ct. 335 , 65 L. Ed. 660 , and regarded by us upon the former appeal, is that, where the party injured by the fraud re *104 mains in ignorance of it, without any fault or want of diligence or care on his part, the bar of the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the fraud is discovered, and this, though there be no special circumstances or efforts on the part of the party committing the fraud to conceal it from the knowledge of the other party. Whether, _ under the facts stated in the complaint, that doctrine is applicable to Donovan is "the main question presented.

Donovan was not a party to the suit when it was instituted in February, 1914, nor was he brought in until more than 18 years after the issuance of the patent, and more…