umrsn siwrss v. cumunn. A 7
case was filediby the attorney general on July 23,1883. ‘ Urpon the al-
legations of the bill, a demurrer was interposed, onthe ground, among
others, that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations;
and if the statute of limitations does notrun against the United States,
then that the cause of action is stale, and it would be inequitable to en·l
force it at this late day. ~ The demurrer was overruled, since the stat-
ute does not run against the United States, and the railroad company
had,. from the first, been active in pursuing its right before the depart-
ment. Thedelay was entirely owing to the course of procedure in the
department, and the large amount of other similar business incident to the
administration of its affairs. U. S. v.. Ourtner, 11 Savvy. 411, 26 Fed.
Rep. 296. Since the decision on the demurrer, the supreme court has
decided the case of U. S. vv. Beebe, 127 U. S. 338, 8 Sup. Ot. Rep.
1086, in which it is held that, after a lapse of 45 years, a suit in the
name of the United States to cancel a patent obtained by fraud, and in-
which the United States has no interest, is barred—the suit being affected
by the laches of those whose interests it asserts. The point is, therefore,
now again made at the hearing, and this case is relied on as determining,
the questioner We do not think it reaches the case. There has, certainly,
been no laches here on the part of the railroad company. It has been
pressing its claim earnestly before the department from the first, and it
could not go any faster thanthe business and course of procedure —of·
the department permitted. The company could not sue the g0V€1’D·V
ment. Besides, we do not think the government, is wholly without in-~
terest. . lf theselands are within the statutory grant, the company has
earned them by a full performance of its part of the statutory`contract,;
and an absolute indefeasible right to a patent, unincumbered by any
cloud, has vested. The government, in that case, is legally bound to
make a good title. It is legally liable to perform its part of the contract, t
and issue the patent as required by the statute. The United States are,-
therefore, responsible to the railroad company for the land, or its full
value. By the mistake of their officers, they have put it out of their
power tocomply with their contract; and they are interested to the full
value of the land in setting aside the listing and patents resulting from
their mistakes, or having them judicially adjudged inoperative and
void, in order that they may relieve themselves from their liability. For
· these reasons, we do not think the decision relied on reaches the case. r
As we have seen from the facts stated, the lands in question are odd
sections within the limits prescribed by the act of 1862, grantinglands
to aid the construction of the Western Pacific Railroad. The Mexican
grant called " Las Pocitas " was a float—a grant of two leagues within ex—
terior boundaries embracing ten or more leagues, unlocated both at the A
• date of the act of 1862, and at the times when the claims of the state to
the land in question were initiated. After the rights of both parties,
whatever they were, had attached, this grant was Hnally located and pat-
ented so as to exclude the lands in controversy. There was then ample
land other than these lands·to satisfy this float, both at the time of the
passage of the act of 1862:, and at the time when the right of the railroad