Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/462

 450 FEDERAL REfOBTBB. �If by the true construction of the grant the McGregor enterprise was entitled to one-half the lands in controversy, and if the company representing that enterprise has "earned" that half by the construc- tion of the road, it was npt in the power of the secretary to deprive them of their beneficiai interest contrary to law. He might indeed cause a patent to issue investing the respondent company with the legal title ; but a court of equity will nevertheless enforce the trust according to the true intent and meaning of the act of congress, which is the paramount law of the trust. �It may be granted that in the matter of selecting the indemnity lands the action of the secretary of the interior is conclusive, but it by no means follows that bis designation of the party entitled to the beneficiai interest in the lands is conclusive. �It was said in argument by respondent's counsel that the respond- ent company had paid out considerable sums for land-oliice fees and perhaps other expanses in perfecting the title to the lands in question. The question as to sums so expended we leave open to future discus- sion, with the suggestion that if the defendant is entitled to be paid any part of such expenses, we see no reason why the pleadings may not be amended so as to bring that matter before the court, and the decree so framed as to adjust the same according to equity. �We have said in the foregoing opinion that the complainant elaima not the whole, but one undivided moiety of the disputed lands. The bill may be framed upon a different theory, but the general sblioitor of the complainant corporation, in bis closing argument, distinctly stated that the complainant claims title to only a moiety of the lands in common with the defendant company. �McCbabt, C. J., concurs. ��� �