This suit is brought to cancel a patent issued to the defendant the Central Pacific Railroad Company, as the successor in ownership to the California & Oregon Railroad Company, on January 24, 1880, to the E. of N. E. -j: of section 33, township 22 N., range 4 E., M. D. M., on the ground that it was issued “through mistake, inadvertence, and error.” The land in controversy is within the land grant made to the California & Oregon Railroad Company under the act of congress of July 25,1866 ( 14 Stat. 239 ). This act granted to the railroad company 10 odd sections of land on each side of the railroad line, not “granted, sold, reserved, occupied by homestead settlers, pre-empted, or otherwise disposed of.” The map of the definite location of the road was filed in the office of *907 the secretary of the interior September 13, 1867, and on October 29, 1867, the lands lying within the limits of the grant were withdrawn from sale by the commissioner of the general land office. The question presented is whether- one Michael Lannon had acquired a right of pre-emption to the land prior to September 13, 1867, when the line of the railroad was definitely fixed and located.

It appears from the testimony that in 1858 the said Michael Lan-non, being then an alien, and engaged in the business of mining near the land in controversy, settled upon the W. of the 17. W. } of section 34, township 22 27., of range 4 E. This and the land in controversy were adjoining subdivisions of the then public, unsurveyed land, containing 80 acres each. The land was surveyed in September and October, 1878, and the official plat of this survey was filed in the land office December 14, 1878. Lannon on February 11, 1867, qualified himself to make a pre-emption claim by filing his intention to become a citizen of the United States. In 1869 Lannon cleared the land in controversy, in 1870 he cultivated a portion of the land, and in 1871 he built a house and moved upon the land. Prior to that time he lived in his house on section 34, upon the 80 acres of land which is not in controversy in this suit. On May 21, 1879, Lannon filed his declaratory statement with the register of the land office at Marysville, Cal., upon the 80 acres of land in section 34; and on December 20, 1879, he filed an application to amend his pre-emption declaratory statement so as to include the 80 acres in controversy, which was allowed by tbe acting commissioner of the land office.

We are of opinion that Lannon was not, at the date the railroad’s grant attached, to wit, September 13, 1867, entitled to pre-empt the land in controversy. He was not a, pre-emption settler upon the land, within the provisions of section 2259, Rev. St., which declare that:

There is no testimony in the record which shows that prior to September 13,18,67, when the map of the definite location of the railroad was filed, the said Lannon had ever entered upon the land in controversy, or claimed or intended to claim the same, or made any improvements thereon of any kind, or exercised any act of dominion or control over it in any manner whatsoever. The ground floor, upon which the entire superstructure of appellant’s argument is built, is based upon the proposition “that Lannon intended to and did claim to have settled upon, cultivated, and improved 160 acres from ¡lie time of his original settlement to the date of his official survey in 1878,” and that the land in controversy was embraced in said claim, and it is contended that these facts are “established by the evidence beyond contradiction.” The testimony upon which appellant chiefly relies is, as stated by counsel, “best described in Lannon’s own simple style.” In his direct examination, Lannon testified as follows:

It will be noticed that this testimony is in many respects uncertain and indefinite. The effect of his testimony is made more specific upon his cross-examination, as follows:

If Lannon had indicated by act or deed his intention prior to September 13, 1867, to claim the land in controversy as a part of the land he had located upon in 1858, then his improvements and dwell *909 ing on the 80 acres where he first resided might have been sufficient to enable him to maintain his claim thereto, unless the legal questions discussed by counsel would deprive him of that right. But in the absence of any such indication until after September 13, 1867, we think the facts are wholly insufficient. Lannon gained no additional rights by his entry, settlement, and residence upon the land in con-troversyaf ter September 13,1867. We are of opinion that the action of the circuit court in refusing to cancel the patent upon this ground was correct.

It is evident from the testimony quoted that Lannon is an illiterate man, and it is argued that allowance ought to be made upon that ground in considering his testimony. The courts have always been liberal in their construction in favor of the rights of settlers upon the public land, but ignorance of the law, or failure to comply with it, cannot be considered in the acquisition of a right created by statute, where the statutory requirements have not been complied with. As was said iu Maddox v. Burnham, 156 U. S. 544, 547 , 15 Sup. Ct. 449:

The decree of the circuit court is affirmed.