· umrnn sums v. cuarnnn. A 9
dition and its divestiture of title thereupon, by proper legal proceedings
on behalf of the United States. The filing of the map of the general
route, and withdrawal thereupon from sale, pre-emption, etc., protected
the lands against the acquisition of any other right by any other parties
until the line should become "definitely hxed," when the grant would
become specic by attaching itself to every odd section within the pre-
scribed limits, and could not thereafter be changed. U. S. v. McLaugh-
lin, 12 Sawy. 191, 202, 30 Fed. Rep. 147; Bnttz v. Railroad Co., 119
U. S. 55, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 100; Railroad Co. v. Orton, 6 Sawy. 198, and
cases there cited; Denny v. Dodson, 32 Fed. Rep. 899; Schitlenberg v.
Harriman, 21 Wall. 44; Railway Co. v. Railroad C0., 97 U. S. 491. ,
A The onlyremaining question, therefore, is: Had any such right, as
is excepted by the statute, legally attached in favor of the state in the
lands in question, or any of them, on January 30, 1865? It is not pre-
tended that any other right than that under the state selection had at-
tached. i It has been settled by numerous decisions in the state of Cali-
fornia, and atlirmed by the United States supreme court, that the state
could acquire no right whatever-by a selection of lieulands made before
the lands have been surveyed bythe United States; and that a selection
made upon unsurveyed lands is utterly yoid. Grogan v.°Knight, 27
Cal·. 516; Railroad C0. v. Robinson, 49 Cal. 446, 448; Chant v. Reynolds,
Id; 217; Young v. Shinn, 48 Cal. 26; Hastings v, Devlin, 40 Cal. 358;
Toland v. Mandcll, 38 Cal. 31, 41; Aurrccoechca v. Sinclair, 60 Cal. 549;
Collins v. Bartlett, 44 Cal. 371,380; Smith v. Athern, 34 Cal. 506; Aarrecoe-
chea v. Bangs, 114 U. S. 383, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 892; Barnard2s Heirs `v.
.Ashley’s Heirs, 18 How. 46. None of the lands in question situate in
township 2 S., range 1 E., as we have seen, were surveyed in the Held
by authority of the United States till the month of March, 1865, and
theapproved plats were not tiled in the district land-office till J une. 10,
1865. Theapplications of the state locating agent to locate all said lands
in township 2 S. were made and entered in the otlice of the register of
theland-oHice on the 12th and 13th of June, 1865; the register having
refused to recognize applications made in 1862 and 1863 upon surveys
made under authority of the state. As we have seen, the acts of the
state in making selections prior to the United States survey in March,
1.865; and the filing of the plat in the land·otlice in June, were utterly
void, and no rights attached to the lands or any of them by virtue of ‘
those acts performed before said survey in March. On January 30th, `
at latest, the grant to the railroad company attached in such manner
that it could not be thereafter limited or divested; and the absolute right
. to the lands by the completion of the road and filing the map of definite
location indefeasibly vested in the company. There can be no doubt,
therefore, that the complainants should have a decree that they are en-
titledto the lands in said township 2 S. The lands in question lying in V
township 3 S., stand in nodiiferent situation from those in township 2
S., except that they were surveyed in the iield by the United States
deputy-surveyor in August, 1862, and a plat thereof was made and ap-
proved by the surveyor general. on December 24, 1862; but a certified