’UNI'1‘ED STATES v. CURTNER. 5
boring owners were notified, and were also present with Livermore, and
. pointed out their boundaries; and they, as well as Livermore, were sat-
isfied. This survey was approved by the surveyor general June 19, _
1854. It embraced over four—nearly five-——sqnare leagues of land, more
than double the amount afterwards stated in the decree of confirmation
by the supreme court, but did not include any of the lands now in cons
troversy. An appeal having afterwards been taken by the United States
from the decree of confirmation, nothing further was done under this
survey. The final decree of confirmation by the supreme courtrin Jane
nary, 1861, limited the amount to two square leagues, by striking out
* the words "more or less," in the decree of the board, and adding other
words indicating the purpose; the language of the final decree being
"containing in all two square leagues, provided that quantity is contained
within the boundaries named," etc. In 1858, pending the appeal, Liv·
ermore died. The claim having been finally confirmed in 1861, Mr.
Dyer, a deputy-surveyor, in 1865, underinstructions dated September
21, 1865, made a survey, which embraced ten square leagues instead of
two, to which the quantity was limited by the terms of the final decree.
This survey embraced the entire Lewis survey, and extended far beyond
it, in nearly all directions, and especially to the soutb·east and north-
west. It also embraced the lands in controversy in this suit, at the two
extremities of the survey, in the longest direction of the survey. The
survey was approved by the surveyor general of California on February
8, 1867. On July 30, 1868, the secretary of the interior set aside this
survey as being "clearly wroug,"   directed the commissioner to ree
turn it to the "snrveyor general, with instructions to reduce the quam
tity of land to two square 1eagues." A new survey was made by Dyer,
deputy-surveyor, by which the land was reduced to two square leagues, -
all of which lies within the boundaries of the Lewis survey, but does not
cover one-halfof that survey. None of the lands in controversy are
within, the two square leagues, or even within the boundaries of the
Lewis survey. This last survey of two square leagues was approved by
the surveyor general May 11, ,1870, by the commissioners of the general 7
land—oif1ce, March 1, 1871, and by the acting secretary of the interior on
June 6, 1871, by which it became final. The land was patented in ac-
cordance with this survey, and the patent accepted by the claimant.
Between May 15, 1863, and May 16, 1864, after actual survey in the .
field, but before the survey had been ofiicially adopted or recognized by
the secretary of the interior, and before it had been approved by the
surveyor general, and filed in the district land-office, the state of Cali-
fornia, by its locating agent, made selections and locations of all the
lands now in controversy in township 3, range 3, in part satisfaction of
the grant to the state, of lands in lieu of sections 16 and 36, under the
act of March 3, 1853, (10 St. p. 246, §§ 6, 7.) Between February 17,
1864, and February 9, 1866, the state had issued its certificates of pur-
chase to the several purchasers thereof, the first payments of the pur-
chase money having been made. The selections, apparently, attbeir
respective dates were by the register of the land~ofHce entered in his of-