l
Uuirmn sums v. smamm:. 41 j
termination, it is bound by the same principles that govern individuals.
When the United States voluntarily appears in a court of justice, it
at the same time voluntarily submits to the law, and places itself
upon an equality with other litigants. U. S. v. Fossatt, 21 How. 450;
The Floyd Acceptances, 7 \Vall. 675; U. S. v. Barker, 12 \Vll€{l.l3. 559.
In Mitchel v. U. S. 9 Pet. 711, the court said: I"
" By common law the king has no right of entry on land which is not given
to his subjects; the king is put to his inquest of oliice or information of in-
trusion in all cases where a subject is put to his action. Their right is the
same, though the king has more convenient remedies in enforcing his. If the
king has no original right of possession to land, he cannot acquire it without
otlice found, so as to annex it to his domain."
And see U. S. v. State Bank, 96 U. S. 36; U. S. v. Bostzcick, 94
U. S. 66. ,
*‘The principles which govern inquiries as to the conduct of individuals in  
respect tv their contracts are equally applicable where the United Statesare
a party." U. S. v. Smith, 94 U. S. 217. _
In the case of The Siren, 7 Wall. 159, the court said:
"But, although direct suits cannot be maintained against the United States
OT against their property, yet when the United States institute a suit they
waive their exemption so far as to allow a presentation by the defendant of
set-offs, legal and equitable, to the extent of the demand made or property
claimed; and when they proceed in rem, they open to consideration all claims
a.nd equities in regard to the property libeled."
And in the same case it was said that the government, by its ap-
pearance in court, "waives its exemptions and submits to the applica-
. . tion of the same principles by which justice is administered between
private suitors."
See, also, Burbank v. Fay, 65 N. Y. 62; Osborne v. Bank of U. S. 9
Wheat. 870; U. S. v. lllacdaniel, 7 Pet. 1; Brent v. Bank of lVashing-
ton, 10 Pet. 615. In the latter case the court declares that thereis
D0 reason why the United States should be exempted from a funda-
mental rule of equity subject to which its courts administer their
remedy, and it is said: "Thus compelled to come into equity for a
remedy to enforce a legal right, the United States must come as
Other suitors, seeking, in the administration of the law of equity, re-
lief," etc.
The same doctrine was laid down in strong language by Attorney
' General {Black in Besides Case, 9 Op. Atty. Gen. 204, and also in
the case of People v. Clarke, 10 Barb. 120. In the latter case, which
· was a bill instituted by the attorney general of New York to cancel
certain patents granted before the revolution, the court said:
" 1f the questions in this case may be deemed to belong to a court of equity,
I cannot persuade myself that they nre, therefore, never to be put at rest by
lapse of time. It would be an alarming dwtrine to hold that every man in
the state who holds any land under a grant before the revolution may be
turned out of possession by the plaintiffs, if a king was cheated who, one or
s two hundred years since, made the grant."