Statement of the Case.

The exceptions having been entered in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the cause was there argued and the exceptions overruled on the 21st day of June, 1889, 149 Mass. 391. As to the contention of the plaintiff that the judges who in fact composed the court on July 25, 1885, were not lawfully in office, and particularly that the defendant French was not then lawfully in office, the court said: "It appears that French was commissioned and qualified as judge 'on or about July 5, 1882.' The argument is, that, as by the act of June 5, 1882, the existence of the court was limited to two years, the commission of Judge French had expired before July 25, 1885, when the court passed the order of which the plaintiff complains. It is contended that, when the existence of the court was continued beyond two years by the statute of June 3, 1884, it was necessary that the judges be reappointed in order lawfully to hold their office during the continued existence of the court." The court held that it was unnecessary to consider whether the plaintiff's right in the matter of his complaint would be greater against a judge de facto than against a judge de jure; that it did not appear that the judges were originally commissioned for any definite time; that they would continue to hold their office while the court continued to exist, unless they were lawfully removed; that it was within the power of Congress, by statute, to extend the existence of the court before the original term of its existence expired; and that the judges, by virtue of their original appointment, continued to be judges while the court continued to exist. It was also held that the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims had the powers which the statutes conferred upon it, and that under the acts of Congress it had the power to prescribe by rule the qualification of attorneys to be admitted to practice before it, and therefore, the power to determine whether the persons who asked to be admitted had the requisite qualifications, and whether the persons who had been admitted retained the requisite qualifications; and that "in the exercise of this power, after notice to the plaintiff and a hearing, that court prohibited the plaintiff from further exercising before it the functions of an attorney of the court. Congress had the right

Opinion of the Court.

to confer this power exclusively upon that court, to be exercised as a judicial power, and the judges of the court are not liable to individuals for judicial acts done within their jurisdiction. Randall v. Brigham, 7 Wall. 523; Randall, Petitioner, 11 Allen, 473."

On the first day of July, 1889, judgment for costs was entered for the defendant. The plaintiff, Manning, thereupon sued out a writ of error from this court, and a motion to dismiss or affirm was made by defendant in error.

Mr. John A. J. Creswell, on behalf of Mr. Charles Theodore Russell, Jr., for the motion, submitted on Mr. Russell's brief.

Mr. Charles Cowley, for plaintiff in error, opposing, submitted on his brief.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the

court.

Jurisdiction to review the final judgment rendered in this case cannot be maintained upon the ground of the denial by the state courts of any title, right, privilege, or immunity claimed under the Constitution, or some treaty, or statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the United States, as the plaintiff in error set up and claimed none such. Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 181; Chappell v. Bradshaw, 128 U. S. 132. And the decision that the defendant was not liable in damages, because in concurring in the order complained of he acted in his judicial capacity, in itself involved no Federal question. Lange v. Benedict, 99 U. S. 68, 71. Nor can the plaintiff object that the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States was drawn in question, or that a title, right, privilege, or immunity was claimed under the Constitution, or a statute of, or a commission held, or an authority exercised under, the United States, on the ground that the defendant claimed to exercise an authority under acts of Congress, or under a commission held under the United States, since this was not the plaintiff's con

Opinion of the Court.

tention, but the defendants'; and the state courts decided not against but in favor of the authority, title, right, privilege, or immunity so claimed.

The three rulings asked by the plaintiff and refused by the court, were:

First. That the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims had no authority to make the order entered by them, touching the plaintiff.

Second. That, the defendant French having admitted that he concurred with the other defendants in issuing and enforc ing said order, the plaintiff was entitled to recover from him compensation for all loss sustained by him, as the direct result of its entry and enforcement.

Third. That more than two years having elapsed after the reorganization of the Court of Commissioners of Alabama Claims, under the act of Congress of June 5, 1882, and after the appointment of the defendants, but prior to the date of the order, the defendants had no lawful authority to act as judges of said Court of Commissioners.

The court held that the term of the judges had not expired, and that they had authority to make the order, and, therefore, that the plaintiff could not recover, and in so holding decided in favor of the validity of the authority exercised by the defendant under the United States, and of the right he claimed under the statutes of the United States, and the commission held by him.

The petition for the writ of error avers "that said action involves divers Federal questions, one of which is whether said acts of Congress authorized said defendants to promulgate or enforce said order, and another of which is whether so much of said acts of Congress as undertakes (if any part thereof undertakes) to authorize the defendants to make such order was not in violation of articles V and VIII of the amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and the decision of said state court was adverse to the plaintiff's contention upon all of said Federal questions."

The grounds thus suggested have been disposed of by what has been said, and it may be added that the petition for a writ

Statement of the Case.

of error forms no part of the record upon which action here is taken. Clark v. Pennsylvania, 128 U. S. 395; Warfield v. Chaffe, 91 U. S. 690.

The writ of error must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

UNITED STATES v. HANCOCK.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 688. Submitted January 8, 1890. - Decided January 27, 1890.

When a decree in equity in a suit relating to public land gives the boundaries of the tract, the claim to which is confirmed, with precision, and has become final by stipulation of the United States and the withdrawal of their appeal therefrom, it is conclusive, not only on the question of title, but also as to the boundaries which it specifies.

Proof that a surveyor of public land, who in the course of his official duty surveyed a tract which had been confirmed under a Mexican land-grant, accepted from the grantee some years after the survey a deed of a portion of the tract, which he subsequently sold for $1500, though it may be the subject of criticism, is not the " clear, convincing and unambiguous proof of fraud which is required to set aside a patent of public land. Doubts respecting the correctness of a survey of public land, which was made in good faith and passed unchallenged for fifteen years, should be resolved in favor of the title as patented.

THIS was a bill filed to set aside a patent. these:

The facts were

In 1843 Michael White petitioned for a tract of land at the mouth of the Cajon de los Mejicanos. This petition was sustained and a grant made by Governor Manuel Micheltorena, the Mexican governor of the Californias, which read:

"Whereas Don Michael White, a Mexican by naturalization, has petitioned for his own benefit and that of his family for the place known by the name of Muscupiabe, bounded on the north by the foot of the mountain, on the south by Agua Caliente, and on the west by the 'Alisos,' (sycamores,) which are on the other side of the creek called 'De los Negros,' having practised the proceedings and relative observation, according to the direction of the laws and regulations; exer

VOL. CXXXIII-13

Statement of the Case.

cising the authority conferred upon me in the name of the Mexican nation, I have concluded to grant him the aforesaid land, declaring it to be his property, by the present letters, subject to the approval of the most excellent departmental assembly, in and under the following conditions.

"3d. The land of which grant is hereby made consists of one league, (un sitio de ganado mayor,) a little more or less, according to the explanation of the diagram which is attached to the respective 'expediente.'

"The judge that shall give the possession shall cause it to be measured in conformity with the ordinance, reserving the overplus that may result to the nation for convenient uses."

On February 8, 1853, a petition for confirmation was presented in the name of the original grantee to the board of commissioners appointed to ascertain and settle private land claims, and on March 6, 1855, the grant was confirmed by an order in these words:

"In this case, on hearing the proofs and allegations, it is adjudged by the commission that the claim of the petitioner is valid, and it is therefore decreed that his application for a confirmation be allowed, with the following boundaries, to wit: On north and east by the foot of the mountains, on the south by the Agua Caliente, and on the west by the cottonwoods, which are on the other side of the creek, reference being had to the map accompanying the expediente."

An appeal was taken from this order of confirmation, but was dismissed on June 8, 1857. This confirmation was not challenged.

In 1867 instructions were issued by the surveyor general of California for the survey; and the survey as made and returned to the surveyor general's office was by him approved, and, on July 11, 1868, forwarded to Washington. This survey in

January, 1871, was disapproved by the Secretary of the Interior as not conforming to the decree of confirmation, and a new survey ordered. On June 10, 1872, the surveyor general reported that he had examined the original title papers and had compared them with the calls of the decree of confir