FEDERAf,< REPOItTER ,vol.' 50.
and, as the liens of sheriff and marshal were concurrent, the one who perfected hiB lien by actuai levy, as did the marshal,'must hold. The cross bill of Mrs. Godfrey must therefore be dismissed. As to Peacock's ClaiInfor rent, the law in this state is that the landlord had no lien, the statute or the covenants in his lease. upon the personal property his tenant prior to the actual levy of his distress warrant. As the levy 'of .the marshal, was prior to that of the landlord, Peacock's cross bill must also be dismissed. The goods having been sold inthe mean time under an interlocutory order, and the proceeds paid into court, a decree will be entered that the fdnd, less costs taxed, be paid to the complainant.
UNITED STATES ,. MEEKER.
(Cwcw/,t CO'Urt, D. Washington, W. D. March 23, 1899.)
TIMBER LAND-CANCELLATION OJ' PATENT-EVIDENCE.
A timber-rand patent will not be canceled on the ground that the lands are not in fact timberlandlt. wben tbe evidence merely renders it doubtful wbether they can properly be lIO oh\.ssed. .
In Equity· Suit in equity to cancel a patent fora tract ofland purchased from the United States as timberland under act of June3i i878,entitled "An actior the sale oftimber lands in the states of California, Oregon, Nevada,and in Washington Territory," (1 Supp. Rev. St., 2d Ed., 167,) on the grotmd that said tract is not in fact timber land, nor subject to sale under the provisions of said act. Bill dismissed. P. O.Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty.. W. H. Pritchard, for defendant.
. HANFORD,District Judge. A number of witnesses have been called on both sides, and have testified as to the character of the land involved in this suit, all of whom appear to be men of good repute, well informed, and credible. There is no conflict in their statements of facts, but in matters of opinion and estimates: theY' differ. From all the evidence I conclude that the land is of such character that honest persons. capable of estimating the value ofland, for agricultural purposes or for its timber, Inay honestly differ iIi their opinions upon the question whether said land is chiefly valuable for the timber thereon, and unfit for cultivation, or otherwise. Part Of the tract isgriod land, capable of being made productive, and,by reason of its location, is certainly valuable simply as agricultural land. Other portions, however, belong to the class of lands in this country as unfit for cultivation, and in fact they cannot be profitably brought under cultivation, except by a gradual process, requiring years of time. The tract, as a whole, is valuable for the timber. it contains. The witnesses who have gone over it and made
UNITED STATES V. TOWN OF 0I0Blt0.
careful estimates have testified thaHhe whole tract (160 aores) wiD yield ,at least 5,000;000 feet of merchantable lumber, besides an indefinite quantity of fire-wood and fencing Dlaterial. If the proofs before me were taken for the purpose of determining originally the question as to the proper classifi<;ation of the land, it would be difficult to determine therefrom ,whether or not the land is subject to sale under said act as timber land. But in this suit to cancel a patent a different rule must be applied. A United States patent is the highest evidence of a good title to land in this country. Confidence in such evidence ought not to be impaired by the action of courts in annulling and setting aside such conveyances for trivial reasons, or when the evidence is not sufficient to establish clearly the invalidity thereof. In the case at bar the evidence leaves the issue in doubt; therefore it is the duty of the court to uphold, rather than annul, the action of the land department in selling the land to the defendant, and conveying the title to him by a patent. U. S. v. Budd, 43 Fed. Rep. 630; 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 575. A decree dismissing the suit for the reason that the evidence does not sustain the of the bill will be entered.
ale v. ToWN
(Ctrcu:U Coun of
Seuen.t.h CircuU. :t4aroh 8, 18l1S.)
Actlnd. March 11,1867, authorized corporated towns to raIse money by Issuing bonds, and to levy an annual tax in addition to the levy for general purposes, no' exceeding 50 cents on each $100 worth of taxable property and '1 on each poll, to pay for the same. Act June 11, authorized town trustees to levy an annuaU tax tor general purposes, not exceeding 50 cents on each $100 of taxable property Bnd:l5 cents on each polL Act 1852, 5 30, proVides that town trustees shall levy a tax "to such an amount as they may deem necessary." Hetd, that a town which had levied and· properly applied the full amount of taxes authorized by the lirst twO statutes aforesaid could not be compelled to make any additional levy to pay ajudgment recovered for interest on bonds issued under the lirst act. "'&UB. , Act Ind. 1859, 127 whlcb· proVides that toWD trustees shall add to tbe tax duplicate of 'each year a levy sufticlent to pay the annual interes.t on, and create a sinking fund for any debt contracted upon petition of tbe citizen owners of live-eighths of tbetaxable I'roperty of the town, does not authorize the levy of a tax to pav interest on bonds issued under a diJferentstatute, and nolo on petition of proPerty
TOWN8-TAX LEVy-INTEREST ON BONDS.
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the DistrictoC Indiana. Petition for mandamus, on the relation of Spitzer&: Co., to compel of Cicero to levy a tax for the payment of certain judgments. 'l'heappJication was denied, and the relators bring error. Atlirmed. SarnJ.er, & Bowers, (A. W. Hatch, of counsel,) for plaintiffs in error. L. A.' CliJfard, Theo. P.. Davi8, and J. Kane, for defendant in en:or· . Before GBESUAloI, Circuit Judge. and BLODGETr and JENXINS. District Judges.· .