Opinion of the Court.

any attempt was ever made to prove up or acquire title under and in accordance with these declaratory statements. But the contention is that, by the simple filing of the statements, the land was excluded from the operation of the grant made by either act.

We are unable to assent to this contention. On May 29, 1856, the Commissioner of the General Land Office telegraphed to the local land officers of the district in which the land is situated to suspend from sale and location all lands in the district. This was prior to the passage of the act of 1856. On June 12, nine days after its passage, the Commissioner wrote to the same officers, referring to his telegraphic despatch, and saying that the object of the withdrawal thus ordered was to protect from sale the lands granted to the State by a bill which had passed both houses of Congress, though not then approved by the President. But, it having been approved on June 3, he directs the continuance of the withdrawal. On October 26, 1856, he again wrote to the local land officers that upon the filing in their office of a duly certified map of the line of route as definitely fixed they " will, without waiting for further instructions from this office, cease to permit locations by entries or preemption, or for any purpose whatever of the lands within fifteen miles of said route," and on March 1, 1859, which was after the filing of these declaratory statements, he sent a letter, enclosing a diagram of the lands in their district with the line. of route as definitely selected designated thereon, and again notified them to withhold from sale all lands within the indemnity limits. The only objection which can be made to the order of June 12, 1856, which was after the passage of the act, is that the Commissioner withdrew too much land, to wit, all land in the district, but that was a matter for the determination of the land department, and cannot be revised or disregarded by the courts.

Walcott v. Des Moines Co., 5 Wall. 681, is in point. In August, 1846, Congress granted to the Territory of Iowa five. alternate sections of the public lands, on each side of the Des Moines River, to aid in improving its navigation. It was a disputed question whether the grant terminated at the mouth

Opinion of the Court.

of the Raccoon Fork, or extended along the whole length of the river to the northern boundary of the State. The land department ordered that lands the whole length of the river within the State should be withdrawn from sale. In the course of subsequent litigation it was decided by this court that the grant terminated at the mouth of the Raccoon River. But in the case cited it was held that the withdrawal by the land department of lands above the mouth of the Raccoon River was valid, and that a subsequent railroad grant, with the ordinary reservation clause in it, did not operate upon lands so withdrawn. If a withdrawal of land beyond the terminus of a grant can be sustained, as it was in that case, equally so should be one made in anticipation of the locations of two lines of road, which locations were as yet undetermined, and might be such as to bring almost any portion of the lands withdrawn within the indemnity limits of the grant.

The order of June 12, 1856, was never set aside. The letter of October 26, 1856, simply gave authority for a reduction in the area of the withdrawn territory upon the filing of a map of definite location, and that of March 1, 1859, forwarded a diagram showing the line of definite location of a part of one of the roads aided, and directed the continued withdrawal of land within the indemnity limits as disclosed thereby, but neither of them set aside the withdrawal of June 12, 1856, or in any other way affected it. These declaratory statements were of no validity; the land was then withdrawn from preemption or other sale, and withdrawn for the purpose of satis fying the grant to the State of Wisconsin.

The judgment of the Circuit Court will, therefore, be reversed, and a new trial ordered.

The CHIEF JUSTICE took no part in the consideration and decision of this case.

VOL. CLIX-5

Statement of the Case.

TEXAS AND PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v.

SMITH.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

Argued and submitted December 19, 1894. - Decided June 3, 1895.

When the receipt given by a local land office to a preemptionist, acknowledging the payment of the preëmption money, is sufficient on its face to transfer the full equitable title to him and does not disclose when his rights to the land were initiated, his vendees are not chargeable, as matter of law, with knowledge of the fact that the land at the time was not subject to preëmption or homestead.

THE facts in this case were as follows: On May 14, 1853, William W. Smith purchased from the State of Louisiana a tract known as Cross Lake, in section 25, township 18, range 14, containing twenty-one and eighteen one-hundredths acres. The title of the State rested on the claim that the land was swamp and overflowed, and passed to it under the acts of Congress granting such lands to the States. On December 3, 1857, the State filed a petition in the District Court of the parish of Caddo to set aside such purchase and cancel the certificate of entry. While this action was pending, and before any trial, William W. Smith died, and the action was revived in the name of John W. Smith, administrator of his succession. Such administrator appeared and answered. The heirs of William W. Smith were not made parties, but upon the petition of the State and the answer of the administrator the action was tried before a jury, and a verdict returned in favor of the State, annulling the sale and cancelling the certificate. A judgment was, on November 20, 1860, entered upon this verdict, from which the administrator took an appeal to the Supreme Court of the State, but such appeal was afterwards and on August 11, 1869, dismissed by the consent of counsel.

On February 24, 1872, at the local land office of the United States, W. D. Wylie entered as a homestead the same tract

Opinion of the Court.

under the description of lot 15, in section 25, etc. On October 19 of that year he changed his homestead to a preëmption entry, paid the government price for the land, and received a final receipt therefor. This receipt was recorded in the recorder's office of the parish of Caddo on November 20, 1872, and on the same day he conveyed a two-thirds interest in the land to Hotchkiss & Tomkies. On December 1, 1874, a United States patent was issued to Wylie for the land. Prior to his homestead entry, and on April 27, 1871, an act was passed by the State of Louisiana incorporating the city of Shreveport, and the tract in controversy was within the boundaries of that city as defined in the act of incorporation. In the spring of 1872 Wylie went into actual possession of the premises, and such possession has continued in him and his grantees up to the present time. By sundry mesne conveyances the title of Wylie passed to plaintiff in error.

This action was commenced in the Circuit Court on May 1, 1886, by the defendants in error, as heirs of William W. Smith, to recover possession of the land. Among the defences set up by the railway company was that of the statute of limitations, or prescription as it is called in the legislation of Louisiana. The case came on for trial on February 28, 1891, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiffs. Thereupon the defendant sued out this writ of error.

Mr. W. W. Howe for plaintiff in error. and Mr. Winslow S. Pierce were on his submitted.

Mr. John F. Dillon brief, on which they

Mr. A. II. Leonard for defendants in error submitted on his brief.

MR. JUSTICE BREWER, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

It is unnecessary to consider any questions other than those which arise upon the instructions of the court in respect to the matter of prescription. The possession of the defendant

Opinion of the Court.

and its grantors had continued from the spring of 1872 until the commencement of this action - about fourteen yearsfour years longer than the time named in the statute. And the title under which this possession commenced was under instruments in legal form, executed by the proper officers of the United States, and apparently conveying full title. The receiver's receipt issued to Wylie was in these words:

"No. 17,830.

"RECEIVER'S OFFICE AT NATCHITOCHES, LA., Oct. 19, 1872. "Received from William D. Wylie, of Caddo Parish, Louisiana, the sum of forty-seven dollars and forty cents, being in full for the lot No. 15 south of the bayou, of section No. 25, in township No. eighteen (18), of range No. fourteen (14) west, containing eighteen acres and ninety-six hundredths, at $2.50 per acre.

"47.40.

J. JULES BOSSIER."

There is nothing on the face of this receipt or in the deed made on November 20 following by Wylie to Hotchkiss & Tomkies to indicate that the land was swamp or overflowed, or that it was within the corporate limits of the city of Shreveport, or tending to show when Wylie first entered upon it and initiated the right of homestead or preëmption. And the same is true of the patent issued two years thereafter. Such a title is the "just title" which, within the terms of the Louisiana statutes, is the beginning of a right by prescription. And this is true whether we regard simply the receiver's receipt or the patent. Indeed, a patent from the United States is the highest evidence of title. As said by Mr. Justice Catron, in Пlooper v. Scheimer, 23 How. 235, 249: "This court held, in the case of Bagnell et al. v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 450, 'that Congress had the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of a patent issuing from the United States; that a patent carries the fee, and is the best title known to a court of law.' Such is the settled doctrine of this court."

There may be a question whether the patent in this case was not something more than the "just title" needed in prescrip