j, fiqtnTY—Pleas—Replications—Suit to Forfeit Land Grants.

Act Cong. Feb. 25,1867, granted certain lands to the state of Oregon to aid In the construction of a military road, and authorized the sale of the lands on the certificate of tho governor of the state that the road was completed. The state granted the lands to a road company, and thereafter the governor issued the required certificate, and the lands were sold. Subsequently, in pursuance of Act Cong. March 2,1889, (25 St. at Large, 850.) a suit was brought to declare the forfeiture of the lands on the ground that the road was never built as required by the act of congress, and that the governor’s certificate was procured by fraud. Defendants filed two pleas, supported by answer: (1) That the issuance of the certificate was without any fraud on the part of the road company; and (2) that defendants were bona fide purchasers without notice of the alleged fraud. The circuit court held these pleas sufficient in law, and dismissed tho bill. On appeal to the supreme court, this decree was reversed, tho court holding that the government was entitled to file replications to the pleas, and saying that “congress intended a full and legal investigation of the facts, and did not intend that the important interests involved should be determined upon the untested allegations of the defendants. ” Subsequently replications were filed to the pleas. Held, that the case was thereafter to be tried on the issues raised by tho pleas, and, if defendants were found to he bona fide purchasers, the bill should be dismissed, irrespective of the questions Of the building of the road, or of fraud in obtaining the governor’s certificate.

9. Same—Evidence—Bona Fide Purchasers.

Evidence that the governor’s certificate of the completion of the road was procured by fraud was inadmissible, when such fraud was not shown to have been committed by tho road company or its grantees, or any one acting in its or their behalf, or that either had any knowledge thereof.

8. Land Grants—Forfeiture—Evidence.

The act of congress having determined that the lands might be sold on the governor’s certificate of the completion of the road, and Die subsequent act of 1874 (18 St. at Largo, 80) having authorized the issuance of patents upon the same evidence, bona fide purchasers from tho road company had a right to rely on such certificate, and, in the absence of any fraud or notice of fraud, evidence that the road was never in fact constructed as required by the act was immaterial.

4. Same—Military Roa»—Certificate of Completion.

The act of 1867 provides that such lands may be sold in quantities not exceeding 80 sections, “when the governor of said state shall certify to the secretary of the interior that 10 continuous miles of said road are completed, and so on, from time to time, until said road shall be completed. ’’ Held, that the fact that the govern- or’s certificate was not given until the whole road was completed did not affect its validity.

5. Same.

The certificate of the governor that ho had “made a careful examination of the said road since its completion, and that the same is built in all respects as required by the abovo-recited acts, ” was a sufficient certificate that the road had been “ constructed and completed. ”

8. Same—Bona Fide Purchasers—Notice.

The fact that the governor’s certificate of the completion of tho road was dated only about eight months after the date of the state act granting the lands to tho road company was not sufficient to put a purchaser from the road company on inquiry, since there was nothing to show that the work may not have been commenced before tho date of such grant.

7. Same—Deed—Bona Fide Purchasers.

In a suit by the United States to forfeit certain lands granted in aid of a military road, defendants claimed to be bona fide purchasers under a deed which declared that the road company “does hereby alien, release, grant, bargain, sell, and convey” to the grantee, “ his heirs and assigns, the undivided one half of all the right, title, and interest” of the grantor “inand to all the lands lying and being in the state of Oregon, granted or intended to be granted to the state of Oregon by the act of congress approved July 2,1864, * * * and granted by the stato of Oregon ” to the grantor by Act Or. Oct. 24, 1864, “and the undivided one half of the right, title, and interest” of the grantor “to said grant of land under the several acts aforesaid, whether listed and approved or otherwise, also the undivided one half of all future right, titlo, and interest, claim, property, and demand, ” which the grantor “may at anytime hereafter acquire to any lands by virtue of any further compliance with, the requirements of said acts of congress, together with the hereditaments and appurtenances; *’ * * to háve and to hold the lands'hereby granted unto” the grantee, “his heirs and assigns, forever. ” Held, that this deed shows an intent to grant the’lands themselves, and not merely any interest which the grantor may have therein, and hence that it is not a mere quitclaim, such as deprives the grantee of the right.to rely upon the plea of an innocent purchase for value. U. S. v. California & Oregon Land Co., 49 Fed. Rep. 496, followed.