Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/750

 MANNING V. SAN JAOINTO TJN CO. 785 �it. If this location is declared void in this proceeding, and the defendant be decreed to convey to the complainant, the court bas no power to relocate the grant, or remand the case to any other court, board, or ofiScer to relocate it; and although the government is satisfied ■witb the location, the grantee of a genuine Mexican grant of 11 leagues will lose the land granted. The proceedings for confirmation and location of the grant baving resulted in a patent after a 14 years' lit- igation, all the tribunals and officers to vfhom the special jurisdiction over the matter was committed have hecoiae funeti officia. �If this court should now assume jurisdiction to vacate the location, it cannot do equity by giving other lands in place of those taken away. Besides, in the mean time, relying upon this location, other parties may have acquired from the government the title to all other lands upon wbich it might be located. These patents ought not to be lightly interfered witb, at the will or caprice of parties entering upon lands claimed under Mexican grants pending proceedings for confir- mation and location, and settingiip recent daims under general pre- emption da-ws, or laws authorizing the location and purchase of mines. Wbether this case bas any feature that brings it within any of the exceptions stated in the last cases cited, it will be time enough to determine when the United States files a bill to vacate the patent on the ground of the frauds charged. In my opinion, the bill pre- sents no ground for equitable relief. �So, also, in my judgment, the suit, in analogy to the statute of lim- itations of the state, is barred by lapse of time. If complainant is entitled to any relief it is wholly on the ground of fraud. Such suits are barred within three years. Code Civ. Pro. § 338, clause 4. According to the allegations of the bill, the fraud was consummated October 27, 1867. The bill was filed September 8, 1S80, nearly 13 years afterwards. The statutory period had, therefore, run more than four times before the filing of the bill, unless the case is within the provision that the cause of action shall "not be deemed to have acorued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the faots con- stituting the fraud." It is attempted to take the case out of the stat- ute by the simple averment "tbat your orator never heard of the varions actings and doings hereinbefore in articles 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of this bill set forth, or any of them, until within two years last past." No reason is given for not discovering the fraud. There certainly should be some showing on this point, in view of the public and notorious acts alleged. The bill is singularly barren of allegations of specifie faets, though amply full as to general charges ��� �