,FEDERAL REPo.RTER,
vol. 43.
8, '1846, which had been approved and certified to the state by the gensaving and excepting all such lands as had been sold eral or agreed to be sold and conveyed by the state or its officials prior to the 23d day of December, 1853, and especially exceptIng 25,487.87 acres lying immediately above the Raccoon fork, supposed to have been sold by the general governmept, but claimed by the state of Iowa. On May 3, 1858, P.Lowe,the governor of the state, executed to the Des Moines River Nl1yigation & Railroad Company 14 deeds or patents describing in de,taitthe lands claimed under the grant\ and which include the lands involved in the present suit; and on May 18, 1858, executed a further deed or patent, general in its terms, but using in the granting clause the terms in substance found in the agreement of settlement of March 22, 1858. At the December term, 1859, of the ,supreme court of Railroad Co. v. Litchfield, 23. How. of the United States, in the 66, that court decided that the grant of 1846 extended only to the Rac'coon fork, and did notafi'ect the' lands above that, point. In the year 1856, congress, by an a()t approved May 15, 1856, granted to the state of Iowa, to aid in the construction of certain named lines of railway from the Mississippi to the Missouri river, every alternate section, designated by odd nU-\llbers, for six sections, in width on each side of the said roads. One of the proposed lines of railway named in said act was to extend from the city of Dubuque to a point on the Missouri near Sioux City. The Dubuque & Pacific Railroad Company, by grant from the state, beCll.me entitled to the lands appropriated by the act of congress to aid in the construction of the line name4, and, by virtue o( this grant, claimed to be entitled to the odd-numbered sections lying within fiVfl miles of either hank, of the Des Moines river; the contention being that, as the grant of 184Ejdid not exteI;ld ll.bove the Raccoon fork, the lands above that fork were not appropriated, and were therefore covered by the railroad grant., 'fhe supreme court decided adversely to this claim of title under grant, in the Cll.seof ,Wolcottv. DeaMoines Co., 5 WalL. 681, in whiCh it was in effect held that, although the act of 1846 did not covet the'Jands a,bove the Raccoon fork, yet'the action of the depart. ment 'of the lands in reserving these lands from other use or disposal,lu,td effect of so withdrawing or reserving the same, that the railroad lapd,grant of 1856 did not embrace the same; and that they did not pass to the state under that grant. In the unrepol'ted case of Riley v. Welles, at December term, 1869, the supreme court held that these landsl above the Raccoon fork, though not covered by the act of liy:vertheless so reserved by action of the land department 1846\ that they, were not open to pre-emption entry or other purchase, ang hence gave him no title; and this ruling was reaffirmed in the case.ofOrilley v. Burrows, 17 Wall. 167, note. , As .the cOn;tmissioner of the general land-office, the secretary of thlf and the secretary of the interior, and the attorney general ha.d 'Itt different times held different views as to the extent of the act of 1846; and, when the view prevailed that the terp?-ip,a,teCiat t1,leHaccoon tork, officers of theland-departm,:mt
UNITED STATES ,,; DES HOINES RIVER NA;V. &: R. CO.
5
bad opened the lands above the fork to pre-emption entry, and trlany persons had, entered into actual occupancy of the lands, had improved the same, had paid the requisite price in cash, or by location of military bounty warrants, had obtained the usual certificates as evidence of their supposed rights, and had in many instances procured patents from the United States. Others had purchased lands north of the Raccoon fork, either from the state of Iowa or from the Des Moines River Navigation & Railroa.d Company, and had actually entered into possession, ,and commenced the cultivatIon, of the lands thus conveyed to them. , . At the beginning of the year 1861 the situation WllS as follows: It had been decided that the actofl846, by its terms, limited the grant oflanda therein made in aid of the improvement of the Des Moines river to lands below the Raccoon fork; that the action of the department officials had reserved the Jands above the Raccoon fork, so that the land grant in aid of railroads made by congress in May, 1856, did not include them, n&r were the same open to entry by settlers under the pre-emption laws of the United States. The, rulings thus made defeated the claims of title to the lands above the Raccoon fork made under the Des Moines rive):' improvement grant of 1846, under the railroad aid grant of 1856, anll under aU pre-emption entries made by actual settlers, and thus estab:lished the fact that it was within the power of the conlrress of the United States to determine the future disposition to be made thereof. On March 2, 1861, congress passed the following "joint resolution to quiet title to lands in the state of Iowa:" "Resolved by the senate and house of representatives of the United States of Amertca in congress assembled. that all the title which the UnitL'<! States still retain in the tract of land along the Des Moines river, and above the ltacCOOn fork thereof, in the state of Iowa. which have been heretofore certified to said state improperly by the departmen t ,of the interior. as part of the grant by act of Congress approved August 8th. 1846, and which is now Ii eld1;>Y bonajlde p'urchasers under the state of Iowa, be. and the same is hereby.l'eliii. qUished to .the state of Iowa." ' / By an act passed July 12, 1862, congress enacted: "That the grant of lands to the then territory of Iowa forthe improvement pf the Des Moines ri vel', ma.de by the act of August 8, 1846. is "hereby t,ended ,so as to include the a.lternate sections (designated by odd numbers) 11,.. ing with,infive miles of said river, between the Uaccoon fork and the nortbern boundary of said state; !luch lands are to be held and applied in accordance with the prOVisions of the original grant. except that the consent of con'grass is hereby given to the application of a portion thereof to aid in thecOIiL struction of the Keokuk: Fort Des Moines & Minnesota Railroad. in accordance with the provision of the act of, the general a!isembly of the state of Iowa. approved Ma,rch 22. 1858. And if any of said lands shall have sold or otherwise disposed of by the United States before the passage ot thill act, excepting those released by the United States to the grantees of the state of Iowa. under the jOint resolution of March 2, 1862. the secrebary of the' terior is hereby directed to set apart an equal amount of lands within said state to be certified in lieu ,thereof: prOVided, that if the said state shall 'have sold and conveyed any portion of the lands lying within the limits of tbiS the title of which has proyed in valid, any lands' which shall .'-," . - .·" , . >.' . , .,· · . - .
·'.\.,J
,':
£Said ,state in liebthare'Ot, by virtue of the provisions of thts act, shan inQreto, i\lJld be held as at trust fnndfor the benefit of the person or persons, wl\O!'e titles shall have failed as aforesaid." , In JPiUiamsv, Baker,; 17 Wall. 144, it was held" that by the joint resolu'tronof 1861; and tbe ,act' Qf1862, the Iowa did receive the title fOr the use of tbose to whom she had Ilold them, as part of that grant;' and for such other purposes as had becoIDe proper under that grant;" InJIomestead Co; 'v,' Valley Railroad Co., 17 Wall. 153, it is said: 1 is Ulerefore no loug'ei' 0pen question that neither the state of Iowa, nOl' rallrdad companIes' for whose benelit the grant of 1856 was made, 'tookany"1iil6le: by that act -to the lands then claimed to belong to the Des Moitiesriver' grant of 1846. and that the joint resolution of 2d of March, :1861,Ilnd act of 12th of July, 1862, transferred the title from the United vested it in the.state of'Iowa for the use of its grantees under the , In Bu11drd v. Railroad 00., 122 U, S. 167, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1149, it was beld that the order reserving the lands above the Raccoon fork from m8irket,issued April 6, 1850, had been continued in force nntil the' passage dl tbe act of congress of July 12, 1862, and the effect thereof was to defeat a title based upon la pre-emption entry permitted by the landofl:icersin;May, 1862.' ' , . P,raoti<l!111y,. the cited, and others dealing with the same general qnestibn8,had resulted in holding that the settlers who had made preemption entries upon the lands north of the Raccoon fork, even though they had,proclU'edpatentsfrom the United State!!, did not thereby procure aI>ytitle to the lands occupied by them, and hence had no standing, enabling them to question the validity of the titles asserted against deri"ed from the act of congress of July 12, 1862, and the joint resolution of 1861;' Many of these seLders, had given up the coneither abaridoned thelands, or had purchased from the parties- holding title under the navigation company. Proceedings having been instituted against the settlers still in possession, looking to their eviction, the recognitionoI the hardships necessarily resulting therefrom led" to, the bringing the present bill on behalf of the United States j the theory being that if grounds existed which would enable the United title to the lands in question, and to obStates to successfully assert -tain a thetltle in the-United States, that it would then .be plaqed :WHllin the power congress to protect the settlers in possession by: granting ,them the title thus, decreed to be in the United States. Before the filing of the bill, the general assembly of the state of Iowa had, by,tuftct passed March 28, 1888, relinqUished to the United States all the title, right, Or interest held by the state to the lands in c()ntroverSY·., Irmay be said that the bill proceeda upon two theories, the ()nebeip.g;tpat the)andsgranted to the statE! were so granted for a specific PtlrpqSlil, to-wit"jp aid in the improvement of the navigation of the Des Moiues in the carrying out of which the United Sta.tes had anintet'est; that the lands passed to the state clothed with a trust, the stateredeiving· them in trast for; the' purpose named j that all per-
an
UNITED STATES II. DES MOINES RIVER lUV. &; R. CO.
sons taking title under such grant to the state were charged with notiCe of this trust; that there was a failure on part of the state and of the navigation company to carry on the work of theimprovinK the naviga:. tion of the river; that the company abandoned all purpose of doing the work it had contracted to do, and that under these circumstances the settlement made between the state and the navigation company, whereby it was in effect agreed that the company should no longer be required to prosecute the work on the river, and yet should receive the lands maining unsold, was in violation of the terms and purposes of the trost under which the grant had been made to the state; and that the United States is entitled to repudiate such agreement, and all conveyances based thereon, and recover back the lands so wrongfully attempted to be conveyed to the navigation company, and through it to the other defendants hereto. The second theory of the bill is that the lands passing to the state uuder the grant in question could only be disposed of by the state for the purpose of the grant, and in the quantities providedf(}r therein; that the contract of June 9, 1854, and the supplementary contracts based thereon, between the state and the navigation company, were and are void on their face because they lacked the approval ofthe governor; that in the settlement in 1858 the state could 'not bind or affect the lands above the Raccoon fork, as the state. had not title or interest therein; that the settlement resolutions of 1858 are limited only to the lands actually granted and passing under the act of August 8, 1846; that the deeds or patents of May 3, 1858, were without effect, as the governor of the state had no authority to execute the same; that all of the contracts, agreements, deeds, and settlements between the state and the navigation company made prior to the year 1861 were wholly void and nuglitory so far as the lands north of the Raccoon fork are con':' cerned; that the subsequent grant in 1862 was made subject to the purposes and limitations contained in the original act of 1846; and that the principle of the inuring of a subsequently acquired title to the benefit of a prior grantee cannot apply. Any purpose to call in question the title of parties in actual possession, holding under the state or the navigation company, is expressly disclaimed .in the bill; it being averred that the benefit of a decree in favor of complainant is sought only as to such lands as are now actually occupied by settlers who do not hold title under the state or the, navigation company, the salX1e amounting to 109,057 acres. To this bill the navigation company interposes a demurrer; and the other defendants,who are grantees of the company, have answered to the merits; and, iSSues being joined, eV'i.l. dence on: behalf of complainant and the answering defendants bas been taken,· and the cause has been fully submitted on its merits, having been fully and ably argued by counsel for the-respective parties. It is earnestly contended by counsel: :for complainant that as this suit is on behalf of the United States, which for the··iirsttime has chosen to R8sert the rights and equities belonging to the government 1Vhich created the original trust, the decisions heretofore made by the supreme court are not applicable in the new view which must be taken Of the questions
FEDERAL REPORTER,
behalf of the United States. While tllere is {ounda.. tien4'QHbis claim, yet, in its,application, it cannot be carried to the extent ofwhollyignoring the many decisions of the supreme court giving a. construction to the acts of congress affecting these landE!. This court is precluded from giving a construction to those acts other or different from that annclUnced by the supreme court. If any modificatiorl or new application of these rulings is to be made, it can only be had by the aothe supreme court. So far as the duty of this court is concerned, H,s"duty is to. apply the rulings 'already announced to the facts developed in-tbis record. Up to the passage of the act of congress of July 12,1862, it would seem clear that the disposition of the lands in question, north of the Raccoon fork, was wholly at the discretion of congress. The va· Hdityor invalidity of the contracts and agrp.cments between the state and the nl:1vigation company made previous to that date is a question wholly aside from the,real issue involved. The state and the navigation com. pany was grave doubt upon the point of the extent of the grant. They knew,that it was for congress to determine whether any tecognJtionishould be given by the United States to the contracts between state and the navigation company I including the agreement of settlement)of;,March.22, 1858. They knew, or were bound to know, that the llaVigation cOlupany could acquire no title to any lands situated tl-bove the RttccOon fork unless congress should thereafter make a grant It wag open to the state and the navigation company to agre(3 to; of the difficulties and disputes between them. It was lik¢wise open to the United Staoos to wholly ignore such settlement, and to refuse any further:grant of lands, in case At was deemed that euch aettlement,was in contravention of the real purposes of the original trust, or was fQrany reason ihimical to the true interests of the general government, or the interests represented by it. When congress passed the actofJttly 1862, it was a matter of public record that the navigation .Qompan)';:did not purpose' to further prosecute the work of improv. ing the- navig!\tif;>n of the rivf'r,. and that the state had wholly released -the co,mplj,nyfrpm any further obligation in that respect, and had also assigned ;to' the company all claims to lanos certified under the act of pongress'of 1846. The act of July 12, 1862, was therefore passed with full knowledge of the actual situation, and it must be construed in that light. Wpatever rights were conferred by that act upon the navigation {lOm'plmy, as the grantee of the state, were so conferred on account of the :work done and expenditures made in thE: past, and without any expeoUl.tiop that anydurther expenditures would be made by that company in the future in aid of the improvement of the navigation of the Des Moines river. No matter how clear it might be now made to appear that the work done by the nf!.vigation company was. of little practical value tQwa.rds the deSired end, the fact remains that the state of Iowa, by tl:.le $ettlemelltof 1858, released the company from further aneeof it$ contrl\Cts, and released to it all claims upon the United States tor-Jands certified, to the state in aid of the enterprise;, and the congress of waiving all questions of the amount of the work
UNITED STATES ". DES MOINES RIVER NAV. &: R. CO.
9
{Ione,or'its present value, or of the misapplication of the lands granted, or of the proceeds thereof, passed the act of July 12, 1862, extending the grant made by the act of 1846 to the northern boundary of the The grant thus made cannot be limited nor modified by arguments deduced from facts existing when the act was passed; for it must be condusively presumed that all such facts were known to the law-making power when action was taken by it. The courts are confined to the duty of construing the act, and mining its force and effect; and, the supreme court having held that this l;ct conveyed the title of the United States to the state of Iowa for the use and benefit of its grantees under the river land grant, this court in this case ,is bound to hold that such i8 the true construction of the act{ regardless of all considerations and arguments based upon the allegations 'of the inadequacy of the consideration received from the company, of the trifling value of the work done by it, of the misapplication of the prop1 erty, and the proceeds thereof, thereby practically defeating Qf the original grant, and other like allegations. Furthermore, in MaYl 1858, deeds had been executed in the name of the state of Iowa colwey. ing to the navigation company "all lands granted by the act of Mngress of../\ugust 8th. 1846, to aid in the improvement of the DeB Moines which have been approved and certified to the state of Iowa by the gaD': eral goverhment;" etc. When the act of July 12, 1862., waBpassed, navigation company stood in the position of a grantee from the state as'tt5 these lands; and if congress had intended to except the company from among the grantees ofthe state, who were to be benefited by that not such exception have been expressly named in the aot? But this is one of the questions which is not open to discussion in this court, having been determined by the supreme court; and, if it is to be rearguedllnd reconsidered, it can only be done before that tribunal. In view of tha rulings made by the court of last resort, I am compelled to hold tha! by the act of July 12, 1862, the title to the lands in question passed to the state of Iowa, and to its grantees. of which the navigation compntly was one, and that, in view of the construction placed upon tl.at act by the supreme court, it must be held that the United States cannot now assert title to these lands, nor can the United States be heard to assen that the grant made by the act of July 12, 1862, must be set aside ftir any of the reasons alleged in the bill. I have not taken up in detail the grounds urged by counselforooIt\" plainant in support ofthe relief sought in the bill, mainly for son that, as I construe the decisions of the supreme court, these quel? tions have been settled by that tribunal,and this court cannot reopen' the controversies intended to be set at rest by the many ions delivered by the supreme court in the cases that have come it. If lam in error in this conclusion. it will have no effect upon the final decision of this cause, which it is understood will be pl'()Iriptly: calTied td,the court of last resort, in which tribunal will be presented, and where a final and conclusive judgment :can be pronounced. . As I understand the effect of thesedecisiona,'they
(10
.n;· ,;.;
nDERAL RIiJPORTER,.
vol. 48,
this to hold ll(i>twithstanding all that has . been support of- tbe allegations ofth"bill"the complainant has Dlalee out a .case. ;entitling it ·tl:>, ;the relief.sought in any of its .the bill must ·be dismissed. With this nQunQ!l\ment;o(the conclusion reached, the duty of the court in this fulfilled, and .iliiml\ybe wholly out of place to make any suggestions in the premises; and yet, in view oithe facts known to the tmd jn view of the fact that by the institution of this proceeding the ltJillited'Stafes hasevin.ced a to try to remedy the inju&that has' been caused to the settlers in actual occupancy of lands, resulting .from the mistaken actions and judgments of the 9fficinl3 of the United Sta.tes, I ,cannot refrain; in concluding:this opinioo,.,fp9.m.urging upon the congress ()f the United StateS the claim,of .far some relief. . The question is not as to the legal title to JAndlJ .as between the ,navigationcompahy and its. grantees and the settlera'ibut'as to the duty and obHgationxestingupon the United States to;:teDiloo,y tbe, wrong done ,to its grautees, and resulting from the acts ofita,OiWQ, officials. ...., · ",':rhe19fficers of the in <lharge of the public domain in the lJtatie ic41owa. these lands north of the Raccopn fork topraernpth:l'l) .··. r SettleI'S in good faith D1ade their entries in the proper loQali the. usual evidences of entry, entered· upon the actual iQ,CCUpancy oftha .Jands, built, their homes. thereqn j and in some .completed the evidence, ,of their titles, as they supposed, by patents from the government·.. True, it may be said that they werA :lllQuud to ;·know tho.tJbe legal effectof the. reservation oBhese lands by, oltdellQfthe commi$$iQner :ofthe, land-office was to reserve the lands entry, but; probably none of them had ever heard of such or, knew of itsexistencej and certainly, when the land-office itself treated .open to entry, permitted entries to be made, and title$; by the issuance of patents, it could not be expected ;the$8,f1'Qntier settlers. .should be more astute in that particular. or be l;iette'r ;p,Dstedin the legal effect of the action had in the land department, the .offioersof the government having charge of the business of the la.nd Through some atrange blunder, when congress ::with, the situation in . 1861 and 1862, the interests of'the state of Iowa, of the navigation company, and of parties purchasing from 0],\ under thes.ta.te,W'ere carefully guarded; but the rights of actual settlirl3, ,cWllling ,under the Unite.d States, were left wholly unprovided for. I cannot,bril)g lllY self to I believe that such failure was intentional. None oithe parti6/3 ""laose interests were. to be considered could present so sU,io,ugand nlilritoriousa claim to the .protection ofeongress as· these setinactuaLoccupilbcYof the lands. It would seem far more prob\J!A.e'n it, was provided in tbe Rct of 1862; extending the original grant, . ;thlt&ccoon. fo.x:k to the. northern boundary of the state, tllat }aiJ:lds fihalLhave been sold or otherwise disposed of by; ,the passage of this oot, excepting' those raStates to the grantees of the atate,of Iowa, under the r
UNITED STATES t1. DES MOINES RIVER NAV... R. CO.
11
joint resolution of March 2, 1862, the secretary of the interior is hereby directed to ,set apart an equal amount of lands within said state to be certified in lieu thereof,"'it was then the belief of' congress that all lands entered by actual settlers were in fact disposed of by the United 'States, within the meaning of this clause ofthe act; and by providing for the certification of indemnity lands in place thereof such disposition to actual settlers would be left undisturbed. Had this construction been placed' upon the act, lands sold or otherwise disposed of by the United States would have been excepted from the grant, and indemnity lands would have been certified to the state in lieu thereof, and thus the rights of all would have been protected. When, however,it was held that the reservation by the department nullified all entries made, and prevented any rights from attaching to the lands in favor of settlers occupying and improving the same. and that such lands were not disposed of by the United States, then the settlers holding under the United States were wholly and left without protection. As I have already said, I cannot believe that such was the intent of congress; yet such is the result. No one, seems to me, who understands the facts will question the proposition that it was most clearly the duty of congress; when it undertook to £lolve the aitua,tion before it in 1862, to have protected the rights oithe'settlers who' had entered into possession of these lands, believing them to be open to entrya11d settlement; the same being done with the assent of the officers of the land department. That duty has never been fulfilled. The reasons for it exist in even stronger force to-day. ,Through some blunder or misconception, congress, when it had the power, failed, to reserve, to the settlers the lands occupied by them, but'-on the contrary, enacted an act which, it is hpld, gives the lands in question to the grantees of the state of Iowa. The consequences of the failure of congress to then protect settlers, who were virtually its grantees, are now seen in the proceedings which must result in the eviction of these settlers from the lands and homt:s they have occupied for 30 years and more. But one course can be pursued that will meet the present exigencYt and that is for the United States to purchase the lands in' question from the defendants, and, having thus acquired the title thereto, congress can deal with the settlers upon equitable principles. It is not .within the power of the courts, by any possible conlltruction of thA existing acts, to meet the difficulties of the situation. Takitiginto account the equities and claims on behalf of the state, the navigation company, and.their grantees, congress, in 1861 and 1862, to meet the same, extended the grant of 1846 Jrom the Raccoon fork to the north boundary oIthe state, but in so doing failed to protect the settlers then actullllyoccupying portions of the :lands thus granted. Should the court, in the effort to protect the, settlers, how hold them entitled to their homes, a qIanitest wrong would be done to the grantees of the navigation company, who for many years have paid the taxes on these lands, and have' sold and conveyed the SatIle, in many instances, to parties paying full value therefor. If tile courts, disregarding the many decisions heretofore made, should find some groundforh()lding that the United States: might j 'at
Ii
.,\,.,
late day, take a decree adjudging the title to be in the· government fortha :benefit of the settlers, Paul might be thereby paid, but Peter of the defendants are in possession of the lands, none of them have built their homes thereon. To them the lands are merely a matter of barter and sale, and doubtless all of them would gladly sell their interest to the government. By a purchase from them ·theUnited States would be placed in a position to do justice to the settlers without injuring others. The' obligation resting upon the United States is not a matter of sentiment, based solely upon sympathy for the settlers. Many of these have paid the United States for the lands held by them, and hold patents for them, issued under the name and authority of the United States. It now appears that the United States, the action,of congress, has granted away these lands; and the Wleof the settlers, upon the faith of which they have spent their years strength in improving their fatms, is held to be only wastepaper. The United States stands in the position oLgrantor to the settlers,and, by, the action ofthe government officials, they have been misled on the of. their,right to occupy and improve the lands held,by them. The: wrongthua caused can .only be remedied now by the United States seeuring to them the title to their homes; and this can bedonebypurchasas Bugg-ested"the title of the defendants to the 109,057 acres of land in, the bill herein filed, the powerto do which resides i,n con.. grass Upon the questions presented by the bill of complainant, the defendants>are entitled to a dismissal of the bill upon the merits, and, it is so: ,ordered.
mg,
CoNKLIN
.v.
WEHRMAN.
((;'ireuit Oourt, N.r Iowa, W. D. May 29, 1890.} ;!).
I.
I . ' , ' .
,
:,",' Where the, purchaser of land under an attachment afterwards sues in a court of' COPlpetent. jurisdiction to set aside a former deed of the land from the debtor in the , attachment suit, as fraudulent, ajudgment setting the deed aside is an adjudication of the validity of the writ of attachment, since, tbe attachment proceedings " Jladbeen invaliii,.the purchaser would. have had no rightl:p question the validity .of the ' :SAME'-'-LAOttEs"":'EsTonElh
SUIT BY PURCHASER-RES APJUDIOAT.l.
.
In asuiH.o quiet title it appeareii that. one G., under whom complainant claimed title, purchasell,the land in dispute at a.sale under an at1f;lchment again,st one and afterwards sued to set aside a former deed from W. as fraudulent j " that both defei:ldlmt and W. had notice of the suit; but failed to defend, and the deed was set aside. The evidelJce showed that, at the time the deed was made, W· .; was insolvent, and defendant had no means: The taxes were paid byG. and his ;grantees, incluiling' complainant, and valuable improvements were made on the, 11lnd.pefendlWlt,.having full knowledge of the facts, waited 25 years before setting up any claim to the land, when he brought ejectment.· HeZd, that defendant was estopped 'to assert-title as against complainant, and should be enjoined. ";l
Bill to quiet:title an,d enjoinactioll8 at law.
