United States v. Budd/Opinion of the Court

In the brief of counsel for the government it is stated that 'the two principal questions arising in the case are: First. Is there such a combination or conspiracy shown to have existed to obtain this, or this and other, timber lands for the defendant Montgomery, as authorizes the annulment of the patent issued to defendant Budd? Second. Is land of the character and description of this quarter section subject to entry and purchase under the 'timber and stone act' of 1878?'

The first question is, perhaps, stated too broadly, for the inquiry is necessarily limited to the land in controversy. If its title was fairly acquired, it matters not what wrongs have been done by either defendant in acquiring other lands; so the question properly to be considered is, was this land wrongfully and fraudulently obtained from the government? We have had many cases of this nature before us, and the rules to guide in its determination have been fully settled. Railroad Co. v. Attorney General, 118 U.S. 682, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66; Maxwell Land-Grant Case, 121 U.S. 325, 381, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1015; Coal, etc., Co. v. U.S., 123 U.S. 307, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 131; U.S. v. Des Moines Nav. & R. Co., 142 U.S. 510, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 308.

In the second of these cases Mr. Justice MILLER thus clearly states the rule:

'We take the general doctrine to be that when in a court of equity it is proposed to set aside, to annul, or to correct a written instrument, for fraud or mistake in the execution of the instrument itself, the testimony on which this is done must be clear, unequivocal, and convincting, and that it cannot be done upon a bare preponderance of evidence which leaves the issue in doubt. If the proposition, as thus laid down in the cases cited, is sound in regard to the ordinary contracts of private individuals, how much more should it be observed where the attempt is to annul the grants, the patents, and other solemn evidences of title emanating from the government of the United States under its official seal. In this class of cases, the respect due to patent, the presumptions that all the preceding steps required by the law had been observed before its issue, the immense importance and necessity of the stability of titles dependent upon these official instruments, demand that the effort to set them aside, to annual them, or to correct mistakes in them, should only be successful when the allegations on which this is attempted are clearly stated, and fully sustained by proof. It is not to be admitted that the titles by which so much property in this country and so many rights are held, purporting to emanate from the authoritative action of the officers of the government, and, as in this case, under the seal and signature of the president of the United States himself, shall be dependent upon the hazard of successful resistance to the whims and caprices of every person who chooses to attack them in a court of justice; but is should be well understood that only that class of evidence which commands respect, and that amount of it which produces conviction, shall make such an attempt successful.'

This case is even stronger in its aspects than some that have been before us, for if the particular wrong charged upon the defendants be established, the money paid is, by the second section of the act, forfeited, and there is not even the possibility suggested in the case of U.S. v. Trinidad Coal & Coking Co., 137 U.S. 160, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 57, of an equitable claim upon the government for its subsequent repayment. The hardship of such a result, so different from that which is always enforced in suits between individuals, makes it imperative that no decree should pass against the defendants unless the wrong be clearly and fully established.

The particular charge is that Budd, before his application, had unlawfully and fraudulently made an agreement with his co-defendant, Montgomery, by which the title he was to acquire from the United States, should inure to the benefit of such co-defendant. Upon this question, the fact that stands out prominently is that there is no direct testimony that Budd made any agreement with Montgomery, or even that they ever met, or either knew of the existence of the other, until after Budd had fully paid for the land. No witness ever knew or heard of any agreement. What, then, is the evidence upon which the government relies? It appears that Montgomery purchased quite a number of tracts of timber lands in that vicinity, some 10,000 acres, as claimed by one of the witnesses; that the title to 21 of these tracts was obtained from the government within a year, by various parties, but with the same two witnesses to the application in each case; that the purchases by Montgomery were made shortly after the payment to the government, and in two instances a day or so before such payment; that these various deeds recite only a nominal consideration of one dollar; that Budd and Montgomery were residents of the same city, Portland, Or.; that one of the two witnesses to these applications was examining the lands in that vicinity and reporting to Montgomery; and that the patentee, Budd, years after his conveyance to Montgomery, stated to a government agent who was making inquiry into the transaction that he still held the land, and had not sold it, but that it was 'in soak.' But surely this amounts to little or nothing. It simply shows that Montgomery wanted to purchase a large body of timber lands, and did purchase them. This was perfectly legitimate, and implies or suggests no wrong. The act does not, in any respect, limit the dominion which the purchaser has over the land after its purchase from the government, or restrict, in the slightest, his power of alienation. All that it denounces is a prior agreement,-the acting for another in the purchase. If when the title passes from the government no one save the purchaser has any claim upon it, or any contract or agreement for it, the act is satisfied. Montgomery might rightfully go or send into that vicinity, and make known generally, or to individuals, a willingness to buy timber land at a price in excess of that which it would cost to obtain it from the government; and any person knowing of that offer might rightfully go to the land-office, and make application and purchase a timber tract from the government, and the facts above stated point as naturally to such a state of affairs as to a violation of the law by definite agreement prior to any purchase from the government,-point to it even more naturally; for no man is presumed to do wrong or to violate the law, and every man is presumed to know the law. And in this respect the case does not rest on presumptions, for the testimony shows that Montgomery knew the statutory limitations concerning the acquisition of such lands, and the penalties attached to any previous arrangement with the patentee for their purchase. Nor is this a case in which one particular tract was the special object of desire, and in which, therefore, it might be presumed that many things would be risked in order to obtain it; for it is clear from the testimony that not the land, but the timber, was Montgomery's object, and any tract bearing the quality and quantity of timber (and there were many such tracts in that vicinity) satisfied his purpose. This is evident, among other things, from the testimony of one Tipperry, upon which some reliance is placed by the government, which was that Montgomery offered him $100, besides all his expenses, if he would take a timber claim in that vicinity, no particular tract being named, and afterwards sell to him. The government relies, also, on the testimony of Edward J. Searls, that Montgomery promised to give him $125, and all costs and expenses, if he would enter a tract of timber land and convey to him, and that thereafter Montgomery advanced the money for the payment to the government, and subsequently, on receipt of a deed, paid him the $125. If it be conceded that this testimony as to another transaction be competent in this case, and there be put upon the testimony the worst possible construction against Montgomery, to the effect that he made a distinct and positive agreement with Searls for the purchase of a tract which the latter was to enter and obtain from the government, and so a transaction within the exact denunciation of the statute, still that testimony only casts suspicion on the transaction in question here, and suggests the possibility of wrong in it. Because a party has done wrong at one time and in one transaction, it does not necessarily follow that he has done like wrong at other times and in other transactions. Suppose in each of the 21 cases specified in the testimony the government had filed a separate bill, making the patentee and Montgomery parties defendant, and charging in each, as here, a prior unlawful agreement, and in 20 of them the patentee and Montgomery had each answered, denying under oath any prior agreement, while in the 21st they had likewise answered, admitting in full, as charged, the making of such unlawful agreement, would the admission in the 1 case be adjudged, in the face of the denial under oath in the other 20, clear, full, and convincing proof that in those cases, likewise, there was a prior, unlawful agreement? And yet such admission of both patentee and Montgomery would be stronger and more satisfactory evidence than the separate testimony of the patentee. And this is all the testimony which in any manner points to wrong in this transaction. Surely this does not come up to the rule so well established as to the necessary proof in a case like this.

But it is suggested that there is a presumption of law that, where it appears that a transaction is wholly within the knowledge of one party to a suit, and he fails to disclose fully the facts concerning such transaction, it was of the character claimed by the adverse party. But that proposition has no application here. The charge is that Budd made a prior agreement with Montgomery. When Budd made his application he filed an affidavit swearing that he had made no agreement with any one. This is one denial under oath of the truth of this charge. In the bill as filed answers under oath were called for, and Budd and Montgomery each filed an answer under oath denying specifically the existence of any such prior agreement; and an answer under oath in an equity case, when called for, is to be taken as evidence. But it is said that neither one of the defendants appeared as a witness, nor did the notary who took the acknowledgment of Budd's deed to Montgomery, nor did White or Rockwell, the two witnesses to the application of Budd for purchase of the land. As no wrong is charged against the three latter, if the government, the complaining party, failed to call them, it is to be presumed that, upon inquiry, it found that they knew nothing which would tend to substantiate its claim. With regard to the two defendants, they having once sworn that there was no agreement, there was nothing further to disclose. If the government doubted their statements under oath it could have called either one, and cross-examined him to its satisfaction. It is familiar law that, where a witness discloses in his testimony that he is adverse in interest and feeling to the part calling him, the latter may change the character of his examination from a direct to a cross-examination, and the opposing party is always adverse in interest. In Clarke v. Saffery, Ryan & M. 126, in which the plaintiff's counsel called the defendant as his own witness, and sought to cross-examine him, Chief Justice BEST said: 'If a witness, by his conduct in the box, shows himself decidedly adverse, it is always in the discretion of the judge to allow a cross-examination; but if a witness called stands in a situation which of necessity makes him adverse to the party calling him, as in the case here, the counsel may, as matter of right, cross-examine him.' See, also, People v. Mather, 4 Wend. 229; Bank v. Davis, 6 Watts & S. 285; Townes v. Alford, 2 Ala. 378. The government failed in this case to exercise such right of cross-examination, and surely cannot now be permitted to make its failure a basis of impeaching their sworn statements. Indeed, in view of the meagerness of this testimony, it is not to be wondered at that the counsel for the government could conscientiously make no stronger claim than this:

'While the proofs of conspiracy and combination involving the two defendants is not so direct and full as a complainant might desire to establish, it is yet believed that the judicial judgment upon the facts shown may fairly be that the obtaining of the lands by Montgomery, as shown in the record, including the Budd tract, was in contravention of the provisions of the 'timber and stone act,' and that the patent and deed now assailed should be declared void.'

With regard to the second question: The description in the act is of lands 'valuable chiefly for timber, but unfit for cultivation.' It is conceded that these lands were valuable chiefly for timber. It is claimed, however, that they were fit for cultivation, and therefore not within the description of lands purchasable under this act; but, obviously, at the time of the purchase, the land was unfit for cultivation. It was covered with a dense growth of timber,-fir trees, many of them 200 feet in height and 5 feet in diameter. In respect to the testimony the trial court makes this comment:

'Thirteen witnesses were called who testified that the soil is stony and inferior for farming purposes; that it contains excellent fir and cedar timber, besides hemlock, and an undergrowth of various shrubs and brush; that the trees are large, tall, and straight, and sound, and will yield from 50,000 to 150,000 feet of the best quality of lumber per acre, and this testimony and estimate is not controverted. The field-notes made by the government surveyor at the time of surveying the land, more than twenty-five years ago, describe the land as being stony and second-rate, and the timber as fir, cedar, and hemlock; and the most convincing testimony of all is a series of twelve photographs taken near the center of each legal subdivision of the tract. These pictures exhibit, with unerring certainty and faithfulness, magnificant trees standing so near together as to force each other to grow straight and tall. They satisfy the court that this tract is valuable and desirable for the timber upon it, and also that no man would be willing to subjugate this piece of forest for the mere sake of cultivating it.'

If it be suggested that this dense forest might be cleared off, and then the land become suitable for cultivation, the reply is that the statute does not contemplate what may be, but what is. Lands are not excluded by the scope of the act because in the future, by large expenditures of money and labor, they may be rendered suitable for cultivation. It is enough that at the time of the purchase they are not, in their then condition, fit therefor. The statute does not refer to the probabilities of the future, but to the facts of the present. Many rocky hill-slopes or stony fields in New England have been, by patient years of gathering up and removing the stones, made fair farming land; but surely no one before the commencement of these labors would have called them fit for cultivation. We do not mean that the mere existence of timber on land brings it within the scope of the act. The significant word in the statute is 'chiefly.' Trees growing on a tract may be so few in number or so small in size as to be easily cleared off, or not seriously to affect its present and general fitness for cultivation. So, on the other hand, where a tract is mainly covered with a dense forest, there may be small openings scattered through it susceptible of culivation. The chief value of the land must be its timber, and that timber must be so extensive and so dense as to render the tract as a whole, in its present state, substantially unfit for cultivation.

But, after all, the question is not so much one of law for the courts after the issue of the patent, as of fact, in the first instance, for the determination of the land-officers. The courts do not revise their determination upon a mere question of fact. In the absence of fraud or some other element to invoke the jurisdiction and powers of a court of equity, the determination of the land-officers as to the fact whether the given tract is or is not fit for cultivation is conclusive. There is, in such cases, no general appeal from the land-officers to the courts, and especially after the title has passed, and the money been paid. We do not, however, need to rest upon this proposition in this case, for the testimony clearly shows that the tract, as a whole, was not fit for cultivation, but was valuable chiefly for its timber.

We see no error in the rulings of the trial court, and its decree will be affirmed.