1. Public Lands (§ 213*) — Spanish Grant — Fraudulent Description in Patent — Suit toe Relief — Evidence.

In a suit to recover lands, based on an alleged conspiracy, resulting in the insertion of false and fraudulent descriptions in patents for a Spanish land grant, issued pursuant to judgments of the United States courts sustaining the grant, which judgments admittedly contained a correct description of its boundaries, acts of the conspirators prior to such judgments in secreting or destroying title papers and maps, which, as evidenced by the judgments, availed them nothing, do not afford ground for relief, and are available to complainants only as matter of inducement, in the way of setting forth the crucial charge of procuring the insertion of false descriptions in the patents.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Public Lands, Dec. Dig. § 213.*]

2. Public Lands (§ 222*) — Spanish Grant — Suit to Reform Boundaries— Laches.

A Spanish land grant in California, made in 1820, was confirmed by the Mexican governor in 1844, and its validity was finally established by the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States in 1856, affirming the decision of the District Court. The records of the United States courts contained correct descriptions and maps of the grant. Pursuant to such judgments, patents issued to the heirs of the grantee, the last in 1877. Thirty years later the patentees brought suit, alleging that, through a conspiracy, false and fraudulent surveys were made and inserted in the patents, by which they wore deprived of portions of the original grant, which they sought to recover. Such lands had in the meantime been acquired by others and had become valuable. The evidence further showed that complainants had knowledge, before the issuance of the paD ents, of the alleged fraudulent surveys, of the mutilation of the recorded map of the original survey, and of the abstraction and concealment of title papers, alleged to have been the work of the conspirators. Held that, on receipt of the patents, they were charged with notice of the incorrectness of the descriptions, and, whether or not they had knowledge of the fraud, they knew facts which put them on inquiry, and that, under all the evidence, they were chargeable with laches, which defeated their right to recover.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Public Lands, Dec. Dig. § 222.*]