As regards the last of these questions, it does not present any suc
h welldefined point of law as can be certified to this court for an answer. It merely presents the whole case without showing a distinct point in regard to which the judges were opposed in opinion. U.S. v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76; S.C.. ante, 35. But, as it must be answered by the action of the court in affirming or reversing the decree, this is immaterial.
With regard to the fourth, fifth, and sixth questions, we have no difficulty in holding that neither the provisions of section 2262 of the Revised Statutes, nor the liability to indictment, nor the actual indictment and conviction, of the defrauding party for perjury in such case as this, in any manner supersedes or debars the United States of the remedy by bill in chancery to vacate the patent obtained by such fraudulent practices. On the contrary, the provision of the section above mentioned, that the person who makes the false oath in the premises shall forfeit any money he may have paid for the land, answers in the negative the fourth question, namely, is the United States bound to offer in the bill, in a case like this, to return the purchase money? The statute decares it is forfeited, and, though the party may lose the land, he also loses his money as a penalty of his perjury.
The seventh question, with regard to laches in bringing the suit, we answer by saying that in the present case there is no such laches shown as will justify the court in dismissing the bill. Waiving for the present the general proposition that time does not run against the government, from the effect of which we see no escape in the short period of seven years and a half, it is pretty clear, on the face of the bill, that the first discovery of the fraud was made when Spence, on applying for his patent under the homestead law, made it known that he had been residing on, improving, and cultivating a part of the land included in Minor's patent during the time Minor swore he was doing the same thing. Of course, lapse of time as a defense to a suit for relief for these frauds did not begin to run until the fraud was discovered.
The first three questions may be considered together. If an individual or a corporation had been induced to part with the title to land, or any other property, by such a fraud as that set out in this bill, there would seem to be no difficulty in recovering it back by appropriate judicial proceedings. If it was a sale and conveyance of land induced by fraudulent misrepresentation of facts which had no existence, on which the grantor relied, and had a right to rely, and which were essential elements of the consideration, there would be no hesitation in a court of equity giving relief; and where the title remained in the possession of the fraudulent grantee, the court would surely annul the whole transaction, and require a reconveyance of the land to the grantor. The case presented to us by the bill is one of unmitigated fraud and imposition, consummated by means of representations on which alone the sale was made, every one of which was false. The law and the rules governing these pre-emption sales required in every instance the settlement and residence for a given time on the land, the actual cultivation of a part of it, and building a house on it. It required that the claimant should do this with a purpose of acquiring real ownership for himself and not for another, nor with a purpose to sell to another. In the case as presented by this bill none of these things were done, though the land-officers were made to believe they were done by the false representation of the defendant. It was a case where all the requirements of the law were set at naught, evaded, and defied by one stupendous falsehood, which included all the requirements on which the right to secure the land rested. There can be no question of the fraud, and its misleading effect on the officers of the government, and, in a transaction between individuals, it makes a clear case for relief.