uurrmn sums v. Basses. »A37  
2. SAME·—PRESUM"PTION AS ro DEATH or Wrmsssras. · ~ - _
When the lapse of time has been so great as to afford a reasonable presump-
tion that the witnesses are dead, and the proofs lost or destroyed, a court of
equity will refuse to undertake the task of ascertaining the facts and affording
a remedy; and this, not because of any statutory limitation, or because of laches
merely, but upon gxounds of public policy and for the peace of society.
‘ 3. Tun Uivxrmn Sums Boom) nr Trmsm Roms.
Lapse of time may be a sufficient- defense to a suit instituted in the name of
the United States. When the government becomes a party to a suit in its
_ courts, it is bound by the same principles that govern individuals. WVhen the
_ United States voluntarily appears in a court of justice, it at the same time vol-
untarily submits to the law, and places itself upon an equality with other
litigants.
The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion.  
Cummings di Baker and Liberty Bartlett, for complainant.
U. M. ui G. B. Rose, Clark d6 Williams, and J. Ill. Moore, for re- 5
spondents.  
McCann, J. The demurrer raises, for the first time in a federal Q
court, the important question whether any lapse of time will constitute {
a bar, or a sufficient defense, to a suit in equity, brought in the name
of the United States.
This suit is brought to cancel and set aside certain land patents
— executed by the United States, on the ground that the same were
obtained by fraud. The patents attacked as fraudulent were issued
about 43 years before the filing of the bill, and many of the al-
leged matters of fact, concerning w}1ich it would be necessary to
take proofs, in order to determine the question of fraud, transpired
V more than 60 years before the filing of the bill, as appears from
q A its allegations. The claims of the Philbrook heirs, which it is alleged
` were unlawfully and fraudulently set aside by the action of the land
department, had their inception in November, 1815. The frauds
alleged to have been perpetrated by C. W. Beebee and Chester Ashley
consisted, as alleged, in inducing the register of the land~ofHce to
believe that the settlers on the land had consented to the issuance of
the patents; and it appears that whatever they did to this end was
done prior to October, 1838. Both the parties charged to have
actually participated in the fraud are long since dead, and we may
assume that most, if not all, the witnesses who could testify from
personal knowledge concerning it are likewise dead. The city of
Little Rock, now the capital of Arkansas, has been built upon the
land, and hundreds of innocent purchasers have bought and paid for
A portions of it upon the faith of the patent of the United States. The
. land is covered with the homesteads of many hundreds of families.
It has been thus occupied in many instances by the present holders
» and their predecessors for more than a generation. A court of
equity cannot contemplate with any degree of favor the proposition
p that this land shall, at this late day, be declared a part of the public
, domain, or granted to claimants who have so long slept upon their
V rights. It must, however, be conceded that, as a general rule, the