22 ` rtnnnsr. nnronrmk.
parties interested were seeking to obtain a patent, some of them em-
ployed one W. W. Griffin, a deputy United States surveyor, to make
a survey of the out-boundary lines; that he did make a survey and ‘
plat, which was filed in the interior department; that by that survey
and plat some 500,000 acres were included within these lines, which
did not properly belong there; that thereafter and in 1877 the land
department awarded a contract to two deputy United States surveyors
to survey the grant on behalf of the United States; that these deputy
surveyors did not run the true boundaries, but falsely and fraudu-
lently, and with intent to cheat the government, ran their easterly
and northerly lines at a great distance from the true boundaries, and
so as to include therein about 270,000 acres of land lying within the
state of Colorado. It is true, the bill does not show any improper
relations or dealings between the parties interested in the grant and
these two deputy surveyors, upon whose survey the patent issued; and
upon that counsel for the defendants insist that whatever of wrong
may have been done by the surveyors is not chargeable to them; that
the government cannot take advantage of ·it; and that the courts can-
not set aside a patent because of any mistake in the survey, the mat-
ter of survey being wholly within the jurisdiction of the land depart-
ment; and the cases of U. S. v. Flint, 4 Sawy. 51; U. S. v. Sepulveda,
1 Wall. 104; and of U. S. v. Vallejo, Id. 658, are cited. I do not
think these cases can be regarded as decisive of this question, for
they must be read in the light of the special provisions of the stat-
y ute concerning the settlement of California land claims. By these
provisions a commission was established to determine the validity of
such claims, with right of appeal to the district court, and after the
validity of the claims had been finally established, the duty of mak-
ing the survey was specihcally cast upon the surveyor general, with
‘ right of review before the commissioner of the land department at
Washington, while here the only provision to which I have been re-
ferred is found in section 2447 of the Revised Statutes, which pro-
vides that it may be lawful to issue patents for confirmed claims "upon
the presentation to the commissioner of the general land-othce of
plats of survey thereof, duly approved bythe surveyor general of any
state or territory, if the same be foundcorrect by the commissioner."
_ Now the principle upon which defendants make their claim is that
laid down in the case of U. S. v. Arrcndondo, 6 Pet. 7 29, as follows:
"'1‘hat where power or jurisdiction is delegated to any public otlicer o,
tribunal over asubjcct-matter, and its exercise is coniided to his or their dis-
cretion, the acts so done are binding and valid as to the subject-matter, and
individual rights will not be disturbed collaterally for anything done in the
exercise of that discretion within the authority and power conferred. The
only questions which can arise between an individual claiming a right under
the acts done and the public, or any person denying its validity, are, power
in the onicer and fraud in the party. "
And it is insisted that, as no fraud inthe party is shown, the patent
is beyond question, no matter what mistakes or wrong may be charge-