Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/409

 FUSSELIi V, HUGHES. 395 �could have the effect of mislead|ing her as to her right, if she had any, to obtain a patent upon her grandfather's entry and survey, more espeeially as her counsel also insist that Kendrick could not have written the word "withdrawn" on the record of that survey until "long since 1850." As her right to apply for a patent expired by statutory limitation on January 1, 1852, it does not appear that she was prevented from an earlier application by the couduct of which she complained. �4. There is another and equally insuperahle objection to the bills in these cases which prevents any decree in favor of the complainant for the relief prayed for, even on the theory and statements of the bills themselves. The complainant claims only an equitable estate, and yet prays for the recovery of possession of the lands against defendants in possession, as to whoin she alleges they have no title either'at law or in equity. 'She does not admit that the patents un- der which they claim have vested them with the legal title, but under such circumstanees as to entitle her in equity to call fora convey- ance and release. If she did, it would be an ordinary case for the exercise of jurisdiction by a court of chancery. But she asserts no equity against the defendants in possession except that they are in possession, without title, of land which in equity belongs to her, the legal title to which is in the United States. Under such circumstanees her only remedy is, if she is entitled to do so, to clothe her equity with the legal title by an application under the law to the public offieers of the United States charged with the duty of issuing patents to those entitled, and then proceed at lawto recover possession. But she does not expect or ask for a decree of this court clothing her with the legal title, nor pray for a oonveyanoe from the defendants of what they claim to have. It would be useless to declare the Wallace and Gregg pat- ents void, because that would be no ground for further relief to the complainant; and if they are void they do not preverrt the assertion of any legal rights she may have. And this court bas no jurisdiction over the principal surveyor, Kendrick, in the diseharge of his ofificial duties, and no right to control the public records lawfully in his custody, and for whose contents he is officially responsible. On the whole, the case fails on its face for want of equity, and is clearly within the authority of the case of Galt v. Galloway, 4 Pet. 332. �5. But there is another substantial and satisfactory ground, con- curring with those already discussed, on which the bills must be dig- missed. if the complainant ever had the right Of action now asserted, it is barred by lapse of time. ��� �