UBITED STATES II. OREGON CENTRAL MILITARY ROAD CO.
v. Boorman's Ex'rs, 18 Wall. 509. Whatever is inequitable, as between man and man, in their dealings with each other, shoul.d, also, be deemed inequitable, as between the United States, and those with whom they condescend to deal, under like circumstances; and, I take it, that the same decree is proper in this case, that would have been proper, had a private party been the grantor, and had he by both his positive affirmative action, and his non-action, for so long a time. given purchasers from his grantee so good reason to believe, that he was fully satisfied with the performance of the conditions of the grant. In my judgment, all subsequent purchasers were entitled to rely, implicitly, upon the certificate of the governor, who was alone authorized to determine the fact of the completion of the road, and, especailly, after its confirn1ation by congress in the act, peremptorily requiring patents to issue in all cases where certificates had been, in fact, issued. If there were 8uspicious circumstances before the pa8sage of this act, which purchasers might caUed upon to notice,the paBBage of this act, as8ured them tJiat congres8 had informed itself of the action of the state, and its grantees under it, and was satisfied as.to· the fuU performance of the work, or,·at least, if it found any dejects or 8hortcomings, that they were waived,and the work accepted. Martin· purchased of the Dalles Company two years after the passage of the act of 1874, and was therefore, a subsequent purchaser. Subsequent purchasers, certainly, had a right to rely upon the action had from time to time by congress, and its agents duly authorized, and the public record of it so made. It is now estopped from alleging the non-fulfillment of the statutory conJitions of the grant. Let the bill be dismissed.
UNITED STATES '11. OREGON CENTRAL MILITARY ROAD Co.
(Circuit Court, D. Oregon. February 20,1890.) In Equity. L. L. McArthur, U. S. Atty" solicitor for complainant.. Jame8 K. and BelMngeT, MaUm"y & Simon, solicitors fOt'defendant. .; Before SAWYER, CIrcuit JudgEl.
.SAWYER, J ·. This case, in nearly all respects, is similar to that just decided, U. S. v. Military Roda Go., ante,4\13. The principal ditrerence between the cases consists in the fact, that in this case, the certificates of the governor, of completiou, are made on the oompletion of each section of 50 miles, and the act authorized the sale of 30 sections of the land bcifore any work was done, and of 30 more upon the certificate of the gov·ernor. of the completion of each 10 milee of the road, till the whole should. be completed. The first that 50 miles had been completed, was made by Governor Gibbs, and the subsequent certificates, by Governor Woodil, who made the certificate in the o.ther case. So, also in this case, the goVernor is not oo.arge(l with. acting fraudulentliU in iSSUing the certificates, as·he was in the other. If this case, as is contended on this account, is brought within the decision of U. S. v. F£int, U. S. v. Th!rockmorton, and U. S. v. Carpenter, 4 Sawy. 42, and the same cases atll,rmed on appeal, 98 U. 68, it ·stands in str·onger position than the other, for in that view, since the officer to de-· termine the question was no participant in the fraud, his decision is conClusive, and ul\assailable even in equity. However, the may be, as applicabl" to this case, the pleas must be beld SUfficient; and the bill dismissed, for the reasons stated in the case .of U. S. v. Militai'li Boaa Go., and it is so ordered. . .. .
et al.·",·. RICHIE.
(Circu4t Court, N. D.. OhW,1i].D. February 17,1890)
'of a :Court of competent !urisdtction of a foreign country, in a suit between .the.same parties and in which· defendant appeared by counsel, will be held conclusive, in the absence of fraud; and it.is immaterial that the judgment was rendered in defendant's absence, and. without his knowledge, he not denying the authority of the attorney to enter his appearance.
At S. E. WiUiq,msO'll, for plaintiffs. Stevenson.Burke and J. E. Ingersoll, for defendant. Before JACKSON and RICKS, J J.
RICKS, J. The plaintift's instituted this suit to recover from the defendant the sum of $238,000, with interest, which he alleges the defead-ant is legally obligated to pay because of a judgment for that sum rendered in plaintiff's favor in the queen's bench division of the high court ofjustice for Ontario. The amended petition sets forth the provisions of the original contract upon which the judgment was based, and avers that said action was .brought upon said agreement;· that plaintiffs prayed that 8aid agreement might be specifically performed, or that they might have damages for the bre-.a.ch thereof; th8ta proper answer was filed by forth fully, his defense to said suit; and that upon a trial judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiffs for said sum. The defendant in his answer avers that the contract sued upon in Canada was an accommodation contract, with the full understanding that the same . was never to be performed, and that, if the de/tmdant was compelled to pay said judgment. he would' be eompelled to pay the same without any consideration, and seeks to have the issues. set forth in his answer in the Canada case presented and tried in this suit. The answer does not deny the authority of the attorney to enter his appearance in the Canada suit, he .filed an answer in' case setting up the Sllme nordoes he deny defe-nse now sought to be made in this court. Hltving by his appear· ance and answer. submitted thejurisdictioll of the Canada court, and hl;lving presented matters ofdefenseJwplch that court must have passed upon in rendering the in the amended petition, the question now to be determined is,>ciiil he be permitted in this court to retry the same matters of defel111el'resented in the Canada suit? It is: not matelial that ,the judgmentin said case was rendered in defimdant's absence, and without hjs he avers in his answer here,1;)ec.ause that court had full juriSdiction of thesubject.matter, and of thedefandant, through his entry by his counsel. . Every intend.' q1erit, is in favor ofthe regularity of its proceedings and of the validity of its judgment, aft it'is,Jtiot,nowattempted to impeach it for (raud. The case, therefore. fairly' ,pWSents Jor consideration the force and effect to be given by this court to a judgment rendered by a foreign