has been made by the debtor, and at the request of a part of the creditors he was required to sell the property at public auction to the highest bidder, without limit or condition, in order that the proceeds of the sale might be applied to the payment of the debt, to secure which the land had been conveyed in trust. The sale was made under the direction and control of the trustee, but, as the creditors who held the obligations of the debtors were not themselves trustees, there was nothing, either at law or in equity, to prevent their being bidders and becoming buyers at the trustee's sale. In reference to that sale they occupied no position, towards the debtor, of trust or confidence. They were charged in respect to it with no duty whatever. They had an interest in it that the property should produce enough to satisfy the debts which it had been given to secure. Beyond that they had neither interest nor duty, and in their own interest the creditors had a right to bid so as to prevent the property from being sacrificed at the sale below its value, in order that it might be made to produce the largest amount towards payment of the debt. The relation of a creditor, secured by such a deed of trust, to a sale made under a power given to a stranger as trustee, does not differ from that of a mortgagee of real estate sold under judicial proceedings for foreclosure by a decree of a court of equity. At such a sale nothing is more common than for the mortgagee to become the purchaser; and it is as beneficial to the debtor as to himself that he should be permitted to enhance the competition at such a sale in order to protect his own interests. In that respect, his own interest coincides with that of his debtor, as it is for their mutual benefit that the property should not be sacrificed so as to leave any part of the debt unpaid. ing to convey. These bonds were the mere personal obligations of the bankrupts themselves, in which neither they nor their assignee had any right of property, and-which had become extinguished as obligations in the hands of any one by the bankrupts' certificate of discharge. For these reasons the decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed. UNITED STATES, Appt., 0. KATE D. MCLAUGHLIN, and Same, as Exrx. of CHARLES MCLAUGHLIN, Deceased, ET AL. (See S. C. Reporter's ed. 428-457.) Mexican grants—when valid-suit to vacatekinds of floating grants-method of location -patents. 1. The boundaries of the Mexican grant, called the Moquelamos grant, considered, the same being described as "bounded on the east by the adjacent sierra:" Held, as the result of the evidence adduced, that its eastern limit was at the point where the foot hills of the sierra begin to rise above the plain, near the range line between ranges 7 and 8. by specific boundaries, where the donee is entitled 2. Mexican grants were of three kinds: (1) grants to the entire tract; (2) grants of quantity within a larger tract described by outside boundaries, where the donee is entitled to the quantity specified and no more; (3) grants of a certain place or rancho by name, where the donee is entitled to the whole place or rancho. The second kind, grants of quantity in a larger tract, are, properly, floats, and do thority of the Government. The Moquelamos grant not attach to any specific land until located by auwas of this kind. It is argued, however, that in the present [539] instance the sale to Dexter was a sale only in form, and not in fact, because no money passed.posal of the Government as part of the public doThis, however, is an error, because the whole amount bid by Dexter at the sale, which was the consideration for the conveyance to him by the trustee, was at once credited by the principal creditors, for whom he was acting as agent, as a credit of cash upon the overdue obligations of the debtor. In fact and in law it was a payment of money to the use and benefit of the debtors in pursuance of their authority. In addition to this, there is another ground which equally supports the decree below. As already recited, the assignee in bankruptcy, in pursuance of an order of the court, sold and conveyed to Hermann all the interest which he as assignee and the Bowens as bankrupts had in and to the real estate in question; and by subsequent conveyances whatever title, if any, thereby passed has become vested in Dore for his use. All that was conveyed by the assignee to Charles L. Easton, the complainant in this suit, was the interest of the assignee and of the bankrupts "in all collaterals pledged with said Bank by said bankrupts or either of them." If this can be considered as the conveyance of any interest in the real estate, it was ineffectual and void, because that interest had been previously conveyed by the same grantor to Her mann. If it is limited to the bonds of the Bowen Brothers secured by the deed of trust, it is equally ineffective, because there was noth 3. In the case of floating grants, as above dewhich was reserved during the examination of the scribed, it was only the quantity actually granted validity of the grant; the remainder was at the dismade in aid of a railroad, such land grant would main. If within the boundaries of a land grant take effect, except as to the quantity of land, or float actually granted in the Mexican grant. If grant, the railroad company would be entitled to that quantity lying together was left to satisfy the patents for the odd sections of the remainder. 4. In the case of a floating Mexican grant, the quantity granted in such part of the larger tract Government retained the right of locating the described as it saw fit; and the Government of the United States succeeded to the same right; hence, tracts within the exterior limits of the grant, leav the Government might dispose of any specific ing a sufficient quantity to satisfy the float. 5. Patents issued to the Central Pacific Railroad Company under its land grant, for any sections lying easterly of range 6 east within the outside boundaries of the Moquelamos grant, are valid, there being enough land lying west of range 7 to satisfy the floating grant of eleven square leagues. 6. The bill in this case was filed by the attorneygeneral on behalf of the United States to vacate a patent granted to the Central Pacific Railroad Company for lands lying east of range 6 within the ground of relief being, that all the lands within claimed limits of the Moquelamos grant-the the exterior limits of that grant were reserved lands; Held, that the lands in question were not reserved lands, and that the bill should be dismissed. [No. 1027.] Argued Dec. 8,9,12,1887. Decided May 14, 1888. APPEAL from a decree of the Circuit Court trict of California, dismissing a suit to cancel of the United States for the Northern Dis *Head notes by Mr. Justice BRADLEY. [428] and annul a patent for land issued by the Barney v. Winona & St. P. R. R. Co. 117 U. S. Reported below in 30 Fed. Rep. 147. Schulenberg v. Harriman, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 58 22:554); Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Kansas Pac. R. Co. 97 U. S. 497 (24:1097); Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U. S. 370 (27:204); Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 488 (30:1039); St. Joseph & D. C. R. R. Co. v. Baldwin, 103 U. S. 427 (26: 578); Leavenworth, L. & G. R. R. Co. v. U. S. 92 Ú. S. 743 (23:638.) Any land that was reserved or otherwise disposed of or sold, at the date of the Act, was not public land, and was not therefore granted to the company. Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U. S. 761 (23:769); U. S. v. Stone, 69 U. S. 2 Wall. 525 (17:765); Dubuque & P. R. R. Co. v. Litchfield, 64 U. S. 23 How. 66 (16:500); Burlington & M. R. R. R. Co. v. Fremont County, 76 U. S. 9 Wall. 89 (19:563); Reichart v. Felps, 73 U. S. 6 Wall. 160 (18:849); Best v. Polk, 85 U. S. 18 Wall. 112 (21:805); Sherman v. Buick, 93 U. S. 209 (23:849); Stoddard v. Chambers, 43 U. S. 2 How. 285 (11:270); Patterson v. Winn, 24 U. S. 11 Wheat. 384 (6:500); Barry v. Gamble, 44 U. S. 3 How. 53 (11:489); Mills v. Stoddard, 49 U. S. 8 How. 345 (12:1107). After the general route map has been filed with the Secretary of the Interior, and the line of the road has thereby become definitely fixed, the company may change the line of their road or route at pleasure, so long as such change does not take the road beyond the lands granted. This is a stale claim. U. S. v. Tichenor, 8 Sawy. 142; U. 8. v. Flint, 4 Sawy. 58; Manning v. Šan Jacinto Tin_Co. 7 Sawy. 430; Badger v. Badger, 69 U. S. 2 Wall. 92 (17:837); Stearns v. Page, 48 U. S. 7 How. 826 (12:931); Pratt v. California Min. Co. 9 Sawy. 363; Sullivan v. Portland & K. R. R. Co. 94 U. S. 811 (24:326). There is no equity in the bill. Johnson v. Towsley, 80 U. S. 13 Wall. 72 (20: Mr. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion [430] of the court: This is a bill in equity filed by the attorneygeneral on behalf of the United States against the Central Pacific Railroad Company, Kate D. McLaughlin, as executrix of Charles McLaughlin, deceased, and others, to cancel and annul a certain patent of the United States, issued on the 23d day of November, 1875, to the Central Pacific Railroad Company from the General Land Office, for certain sections and fractional sections of land in San Joaquin and Calaveras Counties in California. The ground of relief stated in the bill is that the patent was issued without authority of law, for the reason that all of said lands were within the boundaries of a certain Mexican grant claim, called the Moquelamos grant, and were held and reserved for adjustment and satisfaction of said claim at the time when the line of railroad belonging to said company was definitely fixed, and when, by virtue of that fact, the government grant on which the patent was based accrued. The patent was granted to the railroad company for the lands in question as portions of its land grant under the Pacific Railroad Acts passed by Congress in 1862 and 1864. This grant was originally made to the Central Pacific Railroad Company of California; was assigned at the place in question by said company to the Western Pacific Railroad Company on the 31st day of October, 1864, which assigument was approved by Act of Congress, of March 3, 1865; and the two companies named were consolidated together and constituted the present Central Pacific Railroad Company in August, 1870, upon which last company devolved all the franchises, rights, priviThe purchasers of these lands from the rail-leges and property of the said two first named road company, being bona fide purchasers, are entitled to protection. St. Joseph & D. C. R. R. Co. v. Baldwin, supra: Knevals v. Hyde, 5 Dill. 469; Grinnell v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. R. Co. 103 U. S. 742 (26: 457); Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U. S. 366 (27: 203); Walden v. Knevals, 114 U. S. 374 (29: 167); Leavenworth, L. & G. R. R. Co. v. U. S. 92 U. S. 733 (23:634); U. S. v. Burlington & M. R. R. R. Co. 4 Dill.305; Missouri, K. &. T. R. Co. v. Kansas Pac. R. Co. 97 U. S. 491 (24:1095). The patents issued for those lands to the railroad company were issued without authority of law, and are and have always been void. Newhall v. Sanger, and Leavenworth L. & G. R. R. Co. v. U. S. supra; Carr v. Quigley, 57 Cal. 394; McLaughlin v. Powell, 50 Čal. 67. Messrs. A. L. Rhodes and L. W. Elliott, for appellees: Moffat v. U. S. 112 U. S. 31 (28:625); U. S. v. Flint, 4 Sawy. 60. The title of the railroad to specific parcels of land attaches upon filing with the Secretary of the Interior the map of definite location of the line of the road, and the acceptance thereof by the Secretary. Walden v. Knevals, 114 U. S. 374 (29:167); Kansas Pac. R. Co. v. Dunmeyer, 113 U. S. 629 (28:1122); Van Wyck v. Knevals, 106 U. S. 360 (27:201); Wood v. Burlington & M. R. R. R. Co. 104 U. S. 329 (26:772); St. Joseph & D. C. R. R. Co. v. Baldwin, 103 U. S. 429 (26:579); companies. The bill sets forth the alleged Mexican grant, called the Moquelamos grant, and the proceedings in relation thereto upon the claim made for its confirmation, before the commissioners to ascertain and settle private land claims in California, and the District and Supreme Courts of the United States, resulting in the final rejection of said claim by the adjudication of the supreme court on the 13th of February, 1865. The bill also states that the lands included within the boundaries of said claim were held and reserved during said proceedings, to await final adjudication, until said last mentioned date; that said lands lie in the Counties [431] of San Joaquin and Calaveras, on each side of | admit that the lands in question are within the road of the said railroad company between twenty miles of the railroad as definitely lo the Cities of Sacramento and San José. It re- cated and fixed. cites those parts of the Acts of Congress passed They allege that the Western Pacific Railin 1862 and 1864, which granted to the Central road Company, in the year 1868, definitely and Pacific Railroad Company of California the finally located and fixed that portion or section right to construct a railroad and telegraph line of the line and route of said railroad and telefrom the Pacific Coast, at or near San Francis-graph extending from a point at or near the co, to the eastern boundary of the State; and City of Stockton to a point at or near Sacra[432] states the fact that under and by virtue of said mento, and, on the first of February, 1870, Acts there were granted, for the purpose of aid- filed in the Department of the Interior a map ing in the construction of said road and tele- of said portion or section of said line; and that graph line, ten alternate sections of the public after the consolidation and the formation of the lands on each side of and within twenty miles present Central Pacific Railroad Company, to of the road, designated by odd numbers, not wit on the 27th day of February, 1873, the sold, reserved or otherwise disposed of by the said company filed in the Department of the United States, and to which a homestead or Interior a map of the line and route of said preemption claim might not have attached at railroad as definitely and finally located and the time the line of the road of said company fixed from the end of the first twenty-mile secshould be definitely fixed. tion from San José to a point at the end of the 133 miles from San José, at or near Sacramento; and that said line and route so definitely and finally located and fixed are opposite to the lands in question, and include the line or section definitely located by the Western Pacific, and shown on the map filed in February, 1870. The bill then alleges that on the 5th day of October, 1864, the line of said road from the City of Sacramento to its western terminus at the City of San Francisco, including that portion opposite to the Moquelamos grant, was definitely fixed, and a map of said definite location of said road was filed by the said Central Pacific Railroad Company of California with the Secretary of the Interior on the 8th of December, 1864; and that on the 31st of January, 1865, the Secretary of the Interior ordered all of the public lands not then sold, reserved or otherwise disposed of within the limits of twenty-five miles on each side of said road to be withdrawn from preemption, private entry and sale. The bill then states the assignment on the 31st of October, 1864, by the Central Pacific Railroad Company of California to the Western Pacific Railroad Company, of the right to construct the road from Sacramento to San José, with all privileges and benefits, etc., and the confirmation of said assignment by Act of Congress, approved March 3, 1865. It further states that notwithstanding the lands within the boundaries of the Moquelamos grant claim were held and reserved for the satisfaction of said claim from the acquisition of California until the final rejection of the claim on the 13th day of February, 1865, embracing the time when the line of said road was definitely fixed, yet the said patent was issued as aforesaid to the said Central Pacific Railroad Company, as the successor in interest of the Western Pacific Railroad Company, for the lands in question, | which it is alleged were embraced within the boundaries of said Moquelamos grant claim. The defendants, in their answer, deny that the line of the railroad from Sacramento to its [433] western terminus was definitely fixed in October, 1864, or at any time prior to 1868; or that a map of the definite location of the said line or of the portions thereof opposite the Moquelamos grant was filed with the Secretary of the Interior, or in the General Land Office, in December, 1864, or at any time prior to the first of February, 1870. They admit that on the 5th of October, 1864, the Central Pacific Railroad of California designated the general route of its said road between San Francisco and Sacramento; and on the 8th of December, 1864, filed a map of the general route of its said railroad in the Department of the Interior. They The defendants further allege that the lands in question were public lands, and were not reserved, or disposed of in any manner, at the time of the passage of the Acts of July 1, 1862, and July 2, 1864, respectively, and at the time of filing the general route of the railroad in December, 1864, and of the withdrawal of the lands by the Secretary of the Interior in January, 1865, and of the definite and final location in 1868, and of filing the map of the road in February, 1870, and the map in Febuary, 1873. They deny that said lands were included in any Mexican grant, or that they were reserved or held under the laws of the United States for the satisfaction of any claim under such grant; and they aver that said lands, during all the times mentioned in the bill, up to and until the issuing of the patent, were public lands of the United States; that said patent was issued to said railroad company under and in accordance with the provisions of said Pacific Railroad Acts, and was and is legal and valid; that on the 12th of January, 1876, the Central Pacific Railroad Company conveyed to Charles McLaughlin, in fee simple, the lands in question, for which he paid a full and adequate consideration. The defendants append schedules to their answer showing the particular parcels for which they severally defend. To this answer several exceptions were taken, and being overruled, the general replication was filed. Thereupon the parties joined in a written admission of certain facts agreed to be true, which, omitting those relating to the status of the parties and the organization of the corporations mentioned in the pleadings, is as follows, to wit: "8. That on, to wit, the 22d day of September, A. D. 1852, one Andres Pico, since deceased, presented and filed his petition to and with the board of land commissioners appointed under the provisions of the Act of Congress approved March 3, 1851, entitled 'An Act to Ascertain and Settle Private Land Claims in the State of California,' in which petition he claimed in fee, as a grant by the Mexican Government, a cer [434] [435] [436] tain tract of land situated in the said State and "9. That said board of land commissioners the Governor of California on the 6th day of "11. That thereafter the United States ap- "12. That thereafter, on, to wit, the 15th day of October, 1862, the petitioner, Andres Pico, appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States from said decree of said district court rejecting his claim as invalid. That a final hearing of said cause was had before said supreme court, and on the 13th day of February, A. D. 1865, a judgment was made and entered by said United States Supreme Court affirming said decree of the United States District Court, rejecting the claim of said Pico, and adjudging the same to be invalid. "13. That all of the lands included within the boundaries of said alleged Moquelamos grant above described lie in said State and lie on each side of the road of said the Western Pacific Railroad Company, and opposite thereto in its course from said City of Sacramento to said City of San Josè. "10. That afterwards, to wit, on the 11th "The land of which confirmation is hereby made is of the extent of eleven square leagues, and no more, and is known by the name of 'Moquelamos,' and is situate on the river Moquelamos, bordering upon the north upon the southern shore of said river; on the east on the adjacent ridge of said mountains; on the south on the land of Mr. Gulnak, and upon the west upon the estuaries of the shore, as described in the original decree and grant of the same by "15. That the said railroad company filed its assent to said Central Pacific Railroad Acts at the time and in the manner in said Acts provided. "16. That on, to wit, the 23d day of December, 1864, the Secretary of the Interior of the United States ordered all of the public lands [437] [438] not then sold, reserved or otherwise disposed | retary of the Interior, and he thereupon recom- 17. On the 29th day of September, 1866, the president of the Western Pacific Railroad Company made and filed with the United States Surveyor General of the State of California the varied statement provided for by section 4 of said Act of July 1, 1862, and section 6 of said Act of July 2, 1864, showing the construction, completion, and equipment by said Western Pacific Railroad Company, of the most westerly twenty miles, viz., the twenty miles next northeasterly from the City of San Josè of the railroad and telegraph line of said Western Pacific Railroad Company, in compliance with and conformity to the requirements and provisions of said sections of said Acts of Congress; and said surveyor-general thereupon, at the request of said railroad company, notified the commissioners designated and provided for by said Acts to examine said twenty miles of said road and telegraph line and report thereon, in accordance with the provisions of said Acts of Congress; and on the 5th day of October, 1866, said commissioners made their report and certificate to the effect that said twenty miles of road and telegraph line mentioned in said verified statement had been constructed, completed, and equipped by said railroad company, as provided and prescribed in and by said Acts of Congress. "Similar verified statements were made by the president of said Western Pacific Railroad Company as follows: On April 28, 1869, for a section of the road beginning at the junction thereof with the road of the Central Pacific Railroad Company of California, at the American River Bridge near Sacramento City, and extending thence southwesterly twenty (20) miles; also, on October 12, 1869, for a section of said road beginning at the westerly end of the last mentioned section, and extending thence southwesterly sixty-three (63) miles; also on December 29, 1869, for a section of said road beginning at the westerly end of the last mentioned section, and extending thence twenty and two tenths (20) miles to the easterly end of the first mentioned section, of twenty miles, beginning at San Josè. "That all those statements were, upon their being made, filed with said surveyor-general, and he did forthwith, upon the filing of each statement respectively, and at the request of said company, notify said commissioners. That said commissioners did thereupon examine said sections of said road, and made their respective reports thereon, to the same effect as upon the first section of said road, as aforesaid, [439] said reports being made, respectively, on the 29th day of April, 1869, and the 13th of October, 1869, and the 6th day of January, 1870. "That each of the four reports of said commissioners was thereupon filed with the Sec "18. That thereafter there was issued, on the 23d day of November, 1875, to said Central Pacific Railroad Company (?), under the signature of the President of the United States, attested by the recorder of the General Land Office, and under the seal of the General Land Office what purported to be, and in form was, a patent. "That the patent was in the usual form of the patents issued by the United States to the several railroad companies, under and in pursuance of said Pacific Railroad Acts of Congress. "19. That said patent described and purported to convey to said railroad company the several tracts of land mentioned and described in said bill of complaint. "20. That all of said lands described in the bill of complaint herein are opposite to, and within the 25-mile limits on each side of, the route or line of said railroad company's road, as laid down on the map filed by said Central Pacific Railroad Company of California in the Department of the Interior on the 8th day of December, 1864." Besides these admissions a large amount of evidence was taken in the case, and a final hearing was had before the court below in November Term, 1886, and a decree was made dismissing the bill of complaint. The court, in its opinion, held, amongst other things: 1. That the map of the route of the Western Division of the Central Pacific Railroad of California, filed with the Secretary of the Interior Dec. 8, 1864, is the map of the general route. and not of the line as "definitely fixed," within the meaning of the Land Grant Act of 1862. 2. That the map of the route of said road as finally located and constructed, filed with the Secretary of the Interior, February 1, 1870, and accepted as such by that officer, is the map of definite location. 3. That the Moquelamos grant was finally rejected February 13, 1865, after which the lands within the exterior boundaries of the grant ceased to be sub judice and became public lands, to the odd sections of which, within twenty miles of the line of the road, the right of the railroad company attached, and became indefeasible, immediately upon the filing of the map of definite location of the road, and the acceptance thereof as such by the Secretary of the Interior. [440 |