203 U.S. Argument for Appellees. 346; Fretz v. Stover, 22 Wall. 198; Slack v. Walcott, 3 Mason, 508; Fed. Cas. 12,932; Bettes v. Dana, 2 Sum. 383; Fed. Cas. No. 1,368; 2 Barb., Ch. Pr., 52; Milligan v. Milleage, 3 Cranch, 220; Piatt v. Oliver, 1 McLean, 295; Fed. Cas. No. 11,114; Story, Eq. Pl., § 693, note 4 (ed. 1870). The court did not err in permitting the heirs of James Innerarity and John Innerarity to be formally made parties, and this court will not review the order. Credit's Com. Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 117; Chapman v. Barney, 129 U. S. 677; Robertson v. Baker & Macrae, 11 Florida, 192; United States v. Delespine, 15 Pet. 326; Egberts v. Wood, 24 Am. Dec. 238; Hunter v. United States, 5 Pet. 173, 182; Hall v. Fisher, 3 Barb. Ch. 637; Tildesley v. Harper, 10 Ch. Div. 393; 2 English Ruling Cases, 780; Lewis v. Darling, 16 How. 1, 8; United States v. Watkins' Heirs, 97 U. S. 219; United States v. Innerarity, 19 Wall. 595; United States v. Sutter, 21 How. 170; McMicken v. United States, 97 U. S. 204; United States v. Morant, 123 U. S. 343; Castro v. Hendricks, 23 How. 438; Brown v. Brackett, 21 Wall. 387; Buyck v. United States, 15 Pet. 215; Seymour v. Freer, 3 Wall. 202; Cross v. Sabin, 13 Fed. Rep. 308; Moreau v. Saffarans, 3 Sneed, 595; 1 Wash. Real Prop., 574; 3 Wash. Real Prop., 241 (ed. 1868); Van Vetchen v. Terry, 2 John Ch. 197; Hopkirk v. Page, 2 Brock, 20; Fed. Cas. No. 6,697; Mitchell v. United States, 9 Pet. 733; Ely v. United States, 171 U. S. 220; United States v. Kingsley, 12 Pet. 485; United States v. Hanson, 16 Pet. 196; United States v. Forbes, 15 Pet. 182; United States v. Mitchell, 15 Pet. 89; Henshaw v. Bissell, 18 Wall. 255; United States v. Fossatt, 21 How. 446; United States v. White, 23 How. 249; Doe v. MacFarland, 9 Cranch, 153; United States v. King, 7 How. 893; Scull v. United States, 98 U. S. 410; Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet. 185; Moody v. Johnson, 112 N. Car. 546; Newman v. Virginia &c., 80 Fed. Rep. 228; Pierson v. Grice, 6 La. Ann. 232; The Beaconsfield, 150 U. S. 312; United States v. Heirs of Clarke and Atkinson, 16 Pet. 228; Becnel v. Wagnespack, 40 La. Ann. 109; Foote v. O'Roork, 59 Texas, 215; Wyman v. Argument for Appellees. 203 U. S. Wilcox's Estate, 63 Vermont, 487; Vunk v. Raritan &c., 56 N. J. Law, 395; Guild v. Parker, 43 N. J. Law, 43; Dixon v. Dixon, 19 Iowa, 512; United States Ins. Co. v. Ludwig, 108 Illinois, 514, 518; McCall v. Lee, 120 Illinois, 261; S. C., 11 N. E. Rep. 522; Winston v. Mitchell, 93 Alabama, 554, 559; Lyon v. Tallmadge, 1 John Ch. 184; Hardin v. Boyd, 113 U. S. 756; Union Pac. Ry. v. Wyler, 158 U. S. 287; French v. Hay, 22 Wall. 238; Neale v. Neales, 76 U. S. 1; 9 Wall. 1; Tremaine v. Hitchcock, 90 U.S. 518; Bray v. Creedmore, 109 N. Car. 49; Lilly v. Tobbein, 103 Missouri, 477; S. C., 23 Am. St. Rep. 887; Penn. Co. v. Sloane, 24 Ill. App. 48; S. C., 125 Illinois, 72; Sublett v. Hodges, 88 Alabama, 491; Wood on Lim., 294; 1 Danl. Ch. Pr., § 402; Story, Eq. Pl., § 332; Rule 28, Eq. Rules; Davis v. N. Y. R. R. Co., 160 N. Y. 646; Scovill v. Glassner, 79 Missouri, 449; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Cox, 145 U. S. 593; Gormley v. Bunyan, 138 U. S. 623; McDonald v. Nebraska, 101 Fed. Rep. (C. C. A.) 178. This court will not review the order permitting the amendment relying upon the grant of February 20, 1818, instead of January 10, 1818, and if it reviews, will affirm the order. Clements v. Moore, 6 Wall. 310, 311; Cook v. Barr, 44 N. Y. 158; Kennard v. Withrow (Ct. Civ. Appeals Texas), 28 S. W. Rep. 226; Commissioners v. Keene &c., 108 Fed. Rep. 505, 515; Cannell v. Milburn, 3 Cr. C. C. 424; Fed. Cas. No. 2,384; Nash v. Towne, 5 Wall. 689, 698; Moses v. United States, 166 U. S. 580; United States v. King, 7 How. 887, 888; McMicken v. United States, 97 U. S. 210; United States v. Turner, 11 How. 665, 668; United States v. Wiggins, 14 Pet. 346; United States v. Percheman, 7 Pet. 85; United States v. Delespine, 12 Pet. 655; United States v. Mitchell, 9 Pet. 732; Gonzales v. Ross, 120 U. S. 605; 2 Manuel del Abogado Americano, 62, Title 13, de las pruebas; 1 White's Recopilacion, 297; Owings v. Hull, 9 Pet. 625; United States v. Sutter, 21 How. 170; United States v. Davenport's Heirs, 15 How. 7; United States v. Hanson, 19 Pet. 200, 241; United States v. Wiggins, 14 Pet. 346; United States v. Boisdore, 11 How. 97; United States v. Percheman, 7 203 U.S. Argument for Appellees. Pet. 51; United States v. Delespine, 15 Pet. 319, and cases cited; Page's case, 5 Coke, 74; Patterson v. Winn, 5 Pet. 241; Moses v. United States, 166 U. S. 578; Washington v. Hickley, 166 U. S. 521, 532; Dunstan v. Kirkland, 3 Hughes, 641; Fed. Cas. No. 4,181; Roberts v. Graham, 6 Wall. 578; Salt Lake City v. Smith, 104 Fed. Rep. 458; cases cited 163 U. S. 477; Blackwell v. Patton, 7 Cr. 471; Scull v. United States, 98 U. S. 410; Hallford v. Blanchford, 2 Sanf. Chancery, 152; Every v. Merwin, 6 Cow. 366, 367; McDonald v. State, 101 Fed. Rep. 171, 176; Oteri v. Scalzo, 145 U. S. 589; Jones v. Van Doren, 130 U. S. 684, 692; Hopkins v. Grimshaw, 165 U. S. 358; Allen v. Woodruff, 96 Illinois, 11; Ridgely v. Bond, 18 Maryland, 433; Filler v. Tyler, 91 Virginia, 458; Dodge v. Evans, 43 Mississippi, 570; Bartee v. Tompkins, 36 Tennessee, 623; Kelly's Heirs v. McGuire, 15 Arkansas, 555; Jenkins v. Collard, 145 U. S. 560, 561; Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202, 212, 215; United States v. Reynes, 9 How. 147, 148; 1 Chitty on Pleading (16 Am. ed.), 237; Clarke v. Village &c., 88 Michigan, 308; Chicago &c. v. Porter, 72 Iowa, 426; Yontz v. United States, 23 How. 495; Landes v. Brant, 10 How. 372; North Chicago v. Monka, 107 Illinois, 343; Bogardus v. Trinity Church, 4 Paige Ch. 197; Railroad Co. v. Nix, 68 Georgia, 572. The captain general had authority to make the grant to John Forbes & Company. United States v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 452; Chouteau v. Eckhart, 2 How. 374; United States v. The Mayor &c., 11 How. 660; United States v. Turner, 11 How. 665; Smith v. United States, 10 Pet. 332; Arredondo v. United States, 6 Pet. 711; Keen v. McDonough, 8 Pet. 310; Glenn v. United States, 13 How. 261; United States v. Acosta, 1 How. 26; United States v. Segui, 10 Pet. 306; United States v. Hanson, 16 Pet. 199. The decree of Judge H. M. Brackenridge is not res adjudicata as against this claim. United States v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 467; Smith v. United States, 10 Pet. 321; United States v. Wiggins, 14 Pet. 350; Ely v. United States, 171 U. S. 224; United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 711; United States v. Curry, 6 How. 112; VOL. CCII-27 Argument for Appellees. 203 U. S. Moore v. Albany, 98 N. Y. 408; United States v. Baca, 184 U. S. 653; So. Pac. Ry. v. United States, 168 U. S. 49; DeChambrun v. Schermerhorn, 59 Fed. Rep. 508; Utter v. Franklin, 172 U S. 424; Cromwell v. Sac County, 94 U. S. 351; Norton v. Huxley, 13 Gray, 290; Merriam v. Whittemore, 5 Gray, 317; Dauterive v. United States, 101 U. S. 700; United States v. Morant, 123 U. S. 342; United States v. Lynde, 11 Wall. 632. The alteration of the dates of the grant does not preclude recovery thereon. United States v. King, 7 How. 890; United States v. Perchman, 7 Pet. 51; 1 Green, Evi., § 566, cases cited note 1; Henfee v. Bromley, 6 East, 309; S. C., 2 Smith, 400; Speake v. United States, 9 Cranch, 37; 6 Pet. 722; 9 How. 167, 663; 17 How. 442, 557; 98 U. S. 428; Escriche's Dictionary of Jurisprudence, 888; Jacob's Law Dictionary, vol. 5, p. 398 (ed. 1811); 2 Enc. Law, 265 (2d ed.); 1 Taylor on Evidence, § 164; Malin v. Malin, 1 Wend. 625, 659; 2 Enc. Law, 268; Doane v. Hadlock, 42 Maine, 72; United States v. Linn, 1 How. 104, 113; United States v. Marshall Silver Mining Co., 129 U. S. 579, 589; United States v. Stinson, 197 U. S. 204; United States v. King, 3 How. 786; United States v. Bernal, 1 Hoffman's Repts. 62; Stringer v. Young, 3 Pet. 341; Mitchell v. United States, 9 Pet. 732; United States v. Wiggins, 14 Pet. 345; United States v. Galbraith, 2 Black, 394; Friedman v. Shamblin, 117 Alabama, 454; United States v. Hatch, 1 Paine, 336; DeVoy v. The Mayor, 35 Barb. 264; People v. Minck, 21 N. Y. 539; Casoni v. Jerome, 58 N. Y. 321; see 1 Executive Papers, Sess. 16 Cong., Doc. 2, p. 25; see Letter Sec. State, Doc. 274, 1 Sess. 22 Cong., p. 12; Hornsby v. United States, 10 Wall. 224; Speake v. United States, 9 Cranch, 28; Gonzales v. Ross, 120 U. S. 605; Penny v. Corwithe, 18 John, 501; Prouty v. Wilson, 123 Massachusetts, 297; Stewart v. Port Huron, 40 Michigan, 348; Mallory v. Stodder, 6 Alabama, 861; Lewis v. Payn, 8 Cow. 71; Morgan v. Elam, 4 Yerger, 411; 2 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 2d ed., 196, 204; Doe v. Hurst, 3 Starkie, 60; S. C., E. C. L. 162; Woods v. Hilderbrand, 46 Missouri, 284; 203 U.S. Argument for Appellees. 1 Greenleaf, Evi., § 568; Jackson v. Chase, 2 John, 84, 87; Hatch v. Hatch, 9 Massachusetts, 307; Dana v. Newhall, 13 Massachusetts, 498; S. C., 138 U. S. 21; Alabama State v. Thompson, 104 Alabama, 570; Insurance Co. v. Fitzgerald, 16 Q. B. 450; Davison v. Cooper, 11 M. & W. 778, 800; Burnett v. McCluey, 78 Missouri, 676; Chessman v. Whittemore, 23 Pick. 231; 10 Wall. 36; 2 Ed. Smith L. C. 1; 1 Whart., Evi., 629; 158 U. S. 27; Jackson v. Gould, 7 Wend. 364; North v. Henneberry, 44 Wisconsin, 306; Alexander v. Hickox, 34 Missouri, 496; Patterson v. McClay, L. R. 10 Ex. 360; Ward v. Wesley, 5 H. & N. 87; Hutchins v. Scott, 2 M. & W. 815; Sutton v. Toome, B. & C. 16; S. C., 14 E. C. L. 66; Herrick v. Malin, 22 Wend. 388; 1 Ex. Papers, 1 Session, 16 Congress, Doc. No. 2, p. 34, read in Congress Dec. 7, 1819; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; Lott v. Proudhomme, 3 Rob. La. 293; Lavergne's Heirs v. Elkins' Heirs, 17 Louisiana, 226; Donner v. Palmer, 31 California, 513; Pinkerton v. Ledroux, 119 U. S. 254; United States v. Clark, 8 Pet. 436, 468; United States v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 378; LeRoy v. Jamison, 3 Sawy. 369; Fed. Cas. No. 8,271; Testimony of Carlos Evans, 4 Am. State Papers, 172; 2 White's Recopilacion, 256; United States v. West, 22 How. 315; Law 6, Title 5, Partida 5; Law 4, Title 4, Partida 4; Law 2, Title 11, Partida 5; 1 Sala Illustracion Derecho Real, 271; 2 Tapias Febrero Novissimo, § 3, 134 (Paris ed., 1855); Long v. Dollarhide Co., 24 California, 218; Strother v. Lucas, 12 Peters, 450. No right of Indian occupancy at the time of the grant prevents it from being valid. United States v. Fernandez, 10 Pet. 303; Mitchell v. United States, 9 Pet. 711; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch, 143; Reports of Coms., 4 Am. St. Papers, 93 (Duff Green ed.); 2 White's Recopilacion, 324. The act of 1860 repealed the time limit fixed in the treaty of February 22, 1819. Headmoney cases, 112 U. S. 580; Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, 196; S. C., 143 U. S. 570; S. C., 130 U. S. 581; United States v. Scull, 98 U. S. 410; United States v. Morant, 123 U. S. 335; United States v. Clamorgan, 101 U. S. 822; United States v. Repentigny, 5 Wall. 211; United |