i TRAVER U. TBIBOU•  
It is believed the conclusion reached is in accordance with well-
settled principles of law, and the authority of adjudged cases binding
on this court; and it unquestionably is in harmony with the plainest _
principles- of justice. The company borrowed these bonds and put
them in circulation upon a distinct engagement that it would pro-
vide the funds to pay them, and it gave its assent to the statutory
lien on its road tosecure this result. It sold them to innocent par-
ties for money to build its road. It has received all the benefits that
were expected to accrue to it under the contract, and the road and
its earnings remain bound for the performance of the contract by
the company. There is no principle upon which this obligation can
be avoided, either by the company or subsequent purchasers with
notice of the equities of the state bondholders. It would be are-
proach to the law if there was. . T
t The demurrer to the bill is overruled. » ·l~·
MCCBARY, J., 00110\11`8• A T
T Tnsvmz and others v. Tnmooi
` A Sum v. Baooas andiothers.
(Circuit Court, D. Oregon. February 12, 1883.) V ,
U 1. Drvrsioirov Donn-ron mrrwmm Bmrrmn Ama Wnm. ·
.» Thedivision of a donation to a married man, under section 4c! the donation
° act of September 27, 1850, (9 St. 497,) between the settler and his wife, is com·
mitted by the act to the discretion of the surveyor general, and in contempla-
tion of law is made when thesettler proves to the satisfaction of said oiiicer
that he has complied with the provisions of the act, and the latter issues the
certiiicate containing the facts constituting such compliance, and specifying
the portion of the donation set apart to the husband and that to the wife, as
provided in section 7 of said act; and no valid objection thereto l  found by `
the commissioner of the general land-oiiice, which is shown by the subsequent
issue of a patent thereon. .
2. Burr ron Psnr1·r1oN—Srsrurm or- L1Mrr.vr1oNs.
The wife of a married settler, under section 4 of the donation act, died after i
, final proof by the settler of compliance with the act, and before the issue of the
patent. Held, (1) that the half of the donation to which she was or would have
been entitled, was thereupon granted, by the act, to her surviving husband and ,
children in equal parts as the direct donees of the United States; and (2) the
statute of limitations did notccmmence to run against the right of the heirs of
’ said husband to maintain a suit against his vendees of certain distinct portions
. thereof, for a partition of their interests in said half of said donation, until tha
. same was formally and finally divided by the surveyor general as aforesaid.