Opinion of the court. land is withdrawn from location; you cannot be heard." If the grantee, Ross, lost part of his land by Henderson's grant, and his warrants were merged by this misfortune, equity required that Congress should declare his survey to be valid by a curative act. This is the principle governing the deci sions in the cases of Galloway v. Finley (12 Peters, 294), and McArthur v. Dun (7 Howard, 264), where the entries, surveys, and patents had been made to dead men, and were void of course for want of a grantee; yet this court held that the act of 1807 applied, and that a second entry on the first survey was void. In the case of Stubblefield v. Boggs (2 Ohio State Reports, 216), the same doctrine is maintained. We hold that the survey of Ross was protected, and that Saunders's entry, survey, and patent were void, and order that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio be reversed, and that the cause be remanded to that court, to be proceeded with in conformity to this opinion. REMANDED ACCORDINGLY. UNITED STATES v. HALLECK ET AL. 1. Where a decree of the Board of Commissioners, created under the act of March 3d, 1851, to ascertain and settle private land claims in the State of California, confirming a claim to a tract of land under a Mexican grant, gives the boundaries of the tract to which the claim is confirmed, the survey of the tract made by the Surveyor-General of California must conform to the lines designated in the decree. There must be a reasonable conformity between them, or the survey cannot be sustained. 2. When such decree describes the tract of land, to which the claim is confirmed, with precision, by giving a river on one side and running the other boundaries by courses and distances, a reference at the close of the decree to the original title-papers for a more particular description will not control the description given. The documents to which reference is thus made, can only be resorted to in order to explain any ambiguity in the language of the descriptions given; they cannot be resorted to in order to change the natural import of the language used, when it is not affected by uncertainty. 8. When a decree gives the boundaries of the tract, to which the claim is confirmed, with precision, and has become final by stipulation of the Statement of the case. 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. Messrs. Justices CLIFFORD, MILLER, and SWAYNE, dissented in this case. APPEAL by the United States from a decree of the District Court for the Northern District of California, approving the survey of a tract of land claimed under a Mexican grant, confirmed to Folsom, deceased. The case was thus: In 1844, William A. Leidesdorff presented his petition to the then Governor of California, for the grant of a tract of land, the petition representing as follows: That being owner of a great number of large cattle, and desirous of owning in fee a place to take care of them, he has found one vacant, bounded by the lands of Señor Sutter, as shown by the annexed map, which he duly transmits. Said place is on the bank of the American River, and consists of four leagues in length towards the east, and two in breadth towards the south. Accompanying this petition was a diseño or map of the land, and a certificate from Sutter, local magistrate, that the same was "then unoccupied, and was that represented in the map." The map, in this, as in most of the California cases, was but a rude sketch, showing but the general position and outline of the land asked for; and herein, that is to say, in its want of full and exact delineation-as will be seen hereafter-was one of the difficulties of the case. The petition, map, and certificate having been presented, Jimeno, Secretary of State, made report, October 1, 1844, to the go vernor, as follows: "The land solicited is vacant, as shown by the annexed certificate; and it appears by the map, to be so well marked out, and so near to the place of Señor Sutter, that I think there is no difficulty to your excellency's granting to the person interested, the land petitioned for." The provisional concession of the governor, Micheltorena, dated October 8, 1844, was subsequently made. In this, the governor declares Leidesdorff "owner in fee of the land Statement of the case. which is situated on the banks of the river named 'the American,' bounded by the land granted to the colony of Señor Sutter, and by the hills (lomerias) on the east; in extent eight square leagues. The formal grant from the same governor, dated October 8, 1844, issued next. Reciting that Leidesdorff had "petitioned for eight square leagues on the bank of the river called that of 'Los Americanos,' bounded by the land granted to the colony of Mr. Sutter, and by the ranges of hills ('lome. rias') on the east," and that "the proper measures and examinations being previously made as required by laws and regulations," the said governor granted him, Leidesdorff," the aforesaid land." This title of Leidesdorff became subsequently vested in Folsom, and a petition for a confirmation of title under the grant, having been presented in September, 1852, to the Board of Commissioners created under the act of March 3d, 1851, to ascertain and settle private land claims in California, Folsom produced before the board the original papers mentioned above. Testimony was also taken with reference to the line of Sutter on the west, and also with reference to the position and distance of the "lomerias," or range of hills, on the east. The board confirmed the claim, and entered a decree of confirmation. This decree read as follows: ... · "The land of which confirmation is made, is the same which was granted to William A. Leidesdorff by Governor Micheltorena on the 8th day of October, 1844, and is bounded as fellows, to wit: Beginning at an oak tree on the bank of the American River, marked as a boundary to the lands granted to John A. Sutter, and running thence south with the line of said Sutter two leagues; thence easterly, by lines parallel with the general direction of the said American River, and at the distance, * No copy of the diseño or map accompanying the original petition, came to the Reporter's possession; though he understood that the "lomeras" on the east were not designated upon it. He supposes, that in fact, they lay somewhat in the direction of the dotted lines, indicating one survey of the tract as that line runs northwesterly and above the mouth of Alder Creek, towards the American River. On the diseño this river ran nearly west. |