map, together with letter of withdrawal, was received by the register of the Land Office at Sioux City, Iowa.

In 1872 the Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company commenced the construction of its railroad from a connection with the St. Paul & Sioux City Railroad at the southern line of the state of Minnesota, at or near the southwest corner of section 31, township 101, range 40, on the southern line of said state of Minnesota, and constructed the same in a southerly direction to the town of Le Mars, in the state of Iowa, but did not construct its road between Le Mars and Sioux City, but operated through trains over another line of road already. constructed between said towns. Whenever 10 consecutive miles of road were constructed, the same was duly certified to the Secretary of the Interior, and patents were issued by the United States to the state of Iowa for lands within the limits of the grant opposite the sections so constructed. The Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Company, by certain acts of the Legislature of the state of Iowa, became the successor of the McGregor Western Railroad Company and completed the construction of its road from McGregor to a point of intersection with the said Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company, and in 1879 the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railroad Company commenced, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa, an action against the Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company and certain officers and trustees of the state of Iowa, to have adjusted the rights to lands within the overlapping limits of the respective railroad companies. Said action was prosecuted through the Circuit and Supreme Court of the United States, and in May, 1886, a decree was entered pursuant to a mandate of the Supreme Court, apportioning the lands between the two companies. The particular lands involved in this action were by said proceedings assigned to the Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company. Subsequently the state of Iowa, by its General Assembly, relinquished to the United States, all the lands which had not been earned by the railroad companies under said grants.

On March 3, 1887, Congress passed an act entitled “An act to provide for the adjustment of land grants made by Congress to aid in the construction of railroads and for the forfeiture of unearned lands, and for other purposes." Act March 3, 1887, c. 376, 24 Stat. 556 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1595). The first section of the act authorized and directed the Secretary of the Interior to immediately adjust in accordance with the decisions of the Supreme Court each of the railroad land grants made by Congress to aid in the construction of railroads, which had not theretofore been adjusted. The second section provided that, upon the completion of said adjustment, if it should appear that lands had been from any cause erroneously certified or patented by the United States for the use or benefit of any company claiming by, through, or under grant from the United States, to aid in the construction of a railroad, the Secretary of the Interior should demand from such company a relinquishment or reconveyance to the United States of all such lands, whether within granted or indemnity limits, and, if any such company should neglect or fail to reconvey within 90 days after

such demand, it was made the duty of the Attorney General to commence and prosecute in the proper courts necessary proceedings to cancel all patents, certifications, or other evidence of title, theretofore issued for said lands, and to restore the title thereof to the United States. By the fourth section of the act it was provided that lands erroneously certified or patented, and which had been sold by the grantee company to citizens of the United States or persons who had declared their intention to become such citizens, the person or persons so purchasing in good faith, heirs or assigns, should be entitled to the lands so purchased upon making proof of the fact of such purchase at the proper land office within such time and under such rules as might be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior after the grants respectively should have been adjusted and patents of the United States should issue therefor, and should relate back to the date of the original certification or patent, and the Secretary of the Interior, on behalf of the United States, should demand payment from the company which had so disposed of such lands for an amount equal to the government price of similar lands. By section 5 it was provided that, where any company should have sold to citizens of the United States or to persons who have declared their intention to become such citizens, as a part of its grant lands, not conveyed to or for the use of such company, and such lands being the numbered sections described in the grant, and being coterminous with the constructed parts of said roads, and where the lands so sold were for any reason excepted from the operation of the grant to said company, it should be lawful for the bona fide purchaser thereof from said company to make payment to the United States for said lands at the ordinary government price for like lands, and thereupon patents should issue there for to said bona fide purchaser, his heirs or assigns.

In February, 1873, the Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company selected the tract in controversy with other lands as and for a part of the lands inuring to it under said act of Congress of May 12, 1864, and filed a written list of said selection with the register and receiver of the Land Office at Sioux City, Iowa. Said officers, in March, 1873, allowed and approved the filing of said list and certified the same as being within the 10-mile limits of said grant and as being free and clear of homestead, pre-emption, state, or other valid claims, which list was duly transmitted to the Commissioner of the General Land Office. The Commissioner of the General Land Office, in June, 1873, approved the said selection and transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior a list embracing said tract of land. In the same month the Secretary of the Interior approved said selection and certificate, and caused copies of such approved list to be filed with the register and receiver at Sioux City, Iowa, and with the Governor of Iowa, and in June, 1873, the United States issued to the state of Iowa, for the use and benefit of said Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company, a patent embracing the tract of land in controversy and other lands, as and for a part of the lands inuring to the state of Iowa, and said

Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company, under said act of Congress of May 12, 1864.

On or about the 21st day of May, 1887, one J. H. Pasco, then a citizen of the United States, purchased the land in controversy from the Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company, in consideration of certain payments made and to be made by said Pasco or assigns until the full sum of $2,146.50 should be paid, and thereupon said Pasco entered into the possession of said land and made valuable improvements thereon. On July 17, 1889, said Pasco sold and assigned said contract for the purchase of said lands to the defendant George W. Patterson, who immediately entered into the possession thereof and made lasting and valuable improvements thereon, and said Patterson and subsequent grantees have continued in the possession, occupation, and cultivation of said land continuously since said date. In the agreed statement of facts it is said that, at the time Pasco and Patterson made their purchases of said land, they each believed in good faith that the said land had been earned by the said railroad company; they knew that the land was within the 10-mile limits of said railroad constructed by the said Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company, but did not know that the railroad company had sold all the lands it had earned at the time of their said purchase, nor did they or either of them know that the railroad company had received indemnity lands by a patent from the state of Iowa of sufficient quantity, along with other lands that had been patented to said railroad by the state, to equal their entire earnings by reason of the construction of said railroad to Le Mars.

In October, 1889, the United States commenced an action in the Circuit Court for the Northern District of Iowa, against the Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company and others, to which action said Pasco and said Patterson were not parties, to quiet the title of the United States in and to certain lands, including those in controversy, for the reason that the same had not been earned by said Sioux City & St. Paul Railroad Company. Such proceedings were had that in October, 1890, said Circuit Court entered a judgment, quieting title to said lands in the United States, from which judgment an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States and said judgment affirmed on the 21st day of October, 1895. Thereafter, on November 18, 1895, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior addressed a communication to the register and receiver at Des Moines, Iowa, reciting the fact of said suit, judgment, and affirmance by the Supreme Court and directed that, in order to carry the restoration to entry of said lands into effect, they should publish a notice for a period of 30 days that the lands, a description of which was to be included in the notice, would be restored to the public domain, and subject to entry on a day to be fixed by the notice, which should be 90 days from the date of the first publication, and that all persons claiming any part thereof under the act of March 3, 1887, should come forward within the 90 days immediately following the first publication and give notice of their claim by publishing their notice of intention to make proof

176 F.-58

thereon upon a day which should be subsequent to that fixed for the restoration. Said communication contained the following sentence:

"To the end that complications which might arise from the former practice of suspending application for these lands may be avoided, and the rightful claimant to acquire title with as little delay as possible, I have to direct that, in the notice of restoration, there be inserted a notice to all prior applicants that their applications confer no rights upon them, and that upon the day set by you for the restoration the lands will be open to entry and disposal without regard to said applications, which shall be held by the notice to be rejected; that all such applicants may also have opportunity to present new applications upon the expiration of the ninety days' notice, you will notice specially all parties shown by your records to have pending applications for these lands, of the rejection thereof, of the date of the restoration and of the necessity of presenting new applications for the protection of their rights. In all cases of conflicting claims, you will proceed in accordance with the rules of practice in contested cases."

Pursuant to said communication, the register and receiver of the United States Land Office fixed the 27th day of February, 1896, as the date prior to which applicants under the act of March, 1887, should file their applications, and as the date upon which persons claiming under the homestead laws of the United States should file their applications, which notice was duly published, etc. On October 22, 1895, the plaintiff, Lyle, settled upon the land in controversy, and in February, 1896, tendered to the register and receiver of the United States Land Office at Des Moines, Iowa, a homestead application with the necessary fees therefor to enter said land, which application and fees. were refused by the register and receiver, and on March 24, 1896, defendant appeared before the Land Office at Des Moines, Iowa, and tendered his homestead filing for the land in controversy, alleging a settlement, residence and cultivation of said land, and the legal qualification to make said entry, and tendered the legal and proper fees and homestead filing therefor, which filing and tender of fees the officers held in abeyance, pending the trial and examination of all parties concerned therein. Pursuant to the notice aforesaid, the defendant Patterson, on January 13, 1896, filed with the register and receiver of the United States Land Office at Des Moines, Iowa, his written notice of intention to make proof of defendant's purchase of the land in controversy under the provisions of the act of March 3, 1887. The register and receiver of the Land Office fixed the 13th day of May, 1896, upon which proof should be submitted on behalf of the plaintiff and defendant herein and all others claiming any interest in said land, notice of which date of hearing was duly published in accordance with the requirements of the Department of the Interior. On May 13, 1896, plaintiff and defendant Patterson appeared, as well as other parties who had filed applications to enter the same as a homestead. At said hearing the parties made proof of their respective claims, and the register and receiver rendered their decision in writing that one Louis Hoffman was entitled to the land in controversy as a homestead. From the decision of the register and receiver, plaintiff and defendant Patterson each perfected appeals to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and in August, 1899, the Commissioner of the General Land Office rendered a decision reversing that of the register and

receiver, and decided that one James A. Beacon was entitled to the lands under the homestead laws of the United States. From that decision the plaintiff and defendant Patterson each perfected appeals to the Secretary of the Interior. The Secretary reversed the decision of the Commissioner of the General Land Office and decided that the defendant Patterson was a bona fide purchaser of said land under and by virtue of his contract of purchase with the railroad company before mentioned, and that he was entitled to the land in question, under the act of March 3, 1887, as a good-faith purchaser. And thereafter a patent was duly issued from the United States, bearing date March 23, 1901, to the land in question to the defendant Patterson as a goodfaith purchaser under said act of March, 1887. Subsequent to the decision of the Secretary of the Interior, to wit, January 30, 1901, Patterson conveyed said premises to T. H. Smith and W. H. Smith for a stated consideration of $6,360, and on March 31, 1901, and after the issue of the patent to Patterson, said T. H. Smith and W. H. Smith sold and conveyed the premises to defendant Thomas Beacom, in consideration of the sum of $6,600, and at the commencement of this suit the legal title was in the defendant Thomas Beacom. On May 24, 1901, plaintiff commenced this action in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Iowa, setting forth in substance, but more in detail, the facts hereinbefore referred to, and praying that it be adjudged and decreed that the decision of the Secretary of the Interior, holding that defendant Patterson was entitled to said. lands as a good-faith purchaser under the act of March 3, 1887, be set aside, canceled, and declared void, and that the defendant Beacom hold said land in trust for plaintiff, and for a conveyance from said Beacom to plaintiff. To this action the defendants appeared, issues. were joined, proofs taken, and the Circuit Court entered a decree, dismissing complainant's bill, to reverse which decree complainant prosecutes this appeal.

Numerous questions have been presented and discussed by counsel, relative to the effect and interpretation of the respective acts of Congress, and of the General Assembly of the state of Iowa, and Patterson's rights as a purchaser from the railroad company; but in the view which we take of the case but two questions only will be considered. It clearly appears by the agreed statement of facts that Pasco, in his purchase from the railroad company, paid the then full value of the land; that he entered into possession, and he and the subsequent assignees and grantees have continued since such purchase in the actual occupation and possession of the premises, cultivating the same, made lasting improvements, and have paid taxes thereon since the year 1887; that at the time complainant entered upon said land with a view of making a homestead settlement he knew of the occupation and possession by the defendant Patterson, of his improvements thereon, and of his claim of ownership of said land.

If it be assumed for the sake of the argument that Patterson was not entitled to acquire this land under the congressional act of March 3, 1887, yet his possession was not mala fides. It was obtained and held under such a state of facts that no one but the United States could