Opinion of the Court.

render exact justice between the parties, because the data are not in existence. It is doubtful if a result approximately correct could be reached upon an accounting. It would be impossible to determine its correctness within many thousands of dollars.

"The result of complainant's contention would be that, whenever any case has been overruled, every transaction or agreement based upon that decision may be set aside by the courts, if not barred by the statute of limitations. The agreements and settlements of parties, made with full knowledge of the facts and in reliance upon the law, ought to be as binding as the judgment of the court in a particular case. If ten other similar suits had been pending when Clute v. Fisher was decided, and judgment had been rendered in reliance upon that decision, the courts could now set them aside. The law is not so unstable as to permit such results. Judgments rendered and contracts made upon the faith of the law as enunciated in the decision of the court, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation, must stand. When the decision is overruled, the overruling decision controls only subsequent transactions. Such is the rule recognized by the decisions and text writers.”

The opinion then proceeded to say that the mistake of plaintiff was one of law, and the case was "stripped of all other circumstances. It contains no element of misrepresentation, imposition, suppression, undue influence, undue confidence, imbecility or surprise. Neither said or did anything to mislead the other. Each acted with deliberation and with complete knowledge of all the facts. The sole basis of complainant's claim is that the decision of this court, upon the faith of which the contract was made, was subsequently overruled.” And it was decided that the case did not come "within any exception to the rule that a mistake of law does not furnish any ground for relief."

It was then considered if the contract settling the boundary line and acquiescence therein and the acts done thereunder estopped plaintiff from asserting a different line, and it was held that it did against the claim that the statute of frauds prevented estoppel - against the claim that a corporation could not settle

Opinion of the Court.

a boundary line without a meeting and vote of its stockholders. "The contract was the act of the three parties to it," the court said,

"It was introduced by the complainant as a valid contract. It was executed with all the formalities of a deed. It had the seal of the corporation. Complainant, as well as the defendants, paid out large sums of money under it. All are now estopped to deny its due execution and validity.

*

66

Complainant is entirely without equity. It doubted the correctness of the rule of Clute v. Fisher, and thought that a different rule might sometime prevail. It was then its duty to take steps to test the question before permitting defendants to enter into a contract and explorations involving over $100,000. It should at least have informed the defendants of its claims, and given them the opportunity to make a contract with that in view.

"This claim would not have been heard of unless the C. I. M. Co. had developed a valuable mine. The fact that the venture proved successful after large expenditure creates no equity for this complainant. The skill, energy and money of that company developed a valuable property. It ought in justice to reap the benefit, and the complainant ought to be estopped to participate in the benefit, unless an unbending rule of law prevents. Twin Lick Oil Co. v. Marbury, 91 U. S. 592; Clegg v. Edmondson, 8 De G. M. &. G. 787.

"It would not have offered to bear its share of the loss if unsuccessful, nor could it have been compelled to.

“Furthermore, it was guilty of laches in keeping silence when it ought to have spoken. Everyone is presumed to know the law. Therefore, it must be presumed to have known of the law enunciated in Grand Rapids Ice & Coal Co. v. South Grand Rapids Ice & Coal Co. It had an able attorney, who keeps well versed in the decisions of the courts of this State. Yet it waited two years and a half before asserting its claim, and still nine months after obtaining the opinion of its attorney that Clute v. Fisher was no longer the law. It waited until

Opinion of the Court.

circumstances and conditions have so changed that it is impossible to restore the status quo."

It is manifest that the Supreme Court rested its decision on the grounds (1) that the pumping contract was a settlement of boundaries between the contestants; (2) that what was done and expended under it worked an estoppel against the plaintiff; (3) laches of the plaintiff, in asserting its claim whereby the status quo could not be restored.

It requires no argument to demonstrate that neither of these grounds involves a Federal question. But plaintiff in error contends that they were all made to depend upon a Federal question, which the court erroneously decided, and therefore that they necessarily involve such question.

It is claimed to arise under conflicting claims under United States patents. "This," counsel for plaintiffs say, "presents the fundamental Federal questions [the italics are counsel's] involved in this case, viz.: Did the complainant acquire title to the centre of the lake by virtue of its ownership of said government lots 2, 3, 4 and 5; or did defendants obtain title by virtue of their several patents, to a point where the south line of section 10, if projected east and west through the water of the lake, would run?" And this asserted Federal question is said to have been decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan in the following language of its opinion: "The Cleveland Iron Mining Co. claimed title by virtue of the original patent. Complainant owned no specific piece of land north of the section line, even under its own theory, which could be measured by metes and bounds. How much, if any, it owned could only be determined by agreement or the decree of a court of equity."

What this language means we do not think the opinion of the court leaves in doubt. But whether plaintiff did or did not own land of section 10 which could be or could not be measured by metes and bounds; whatever its rights and the rights of the other parties were, they could be settled by agreement, and could be made the foundation of business transactions and enterprises. The Supreme Court determined they were so made and could be so made under the laws of Michigan.

But again, and whatever the error in that conclusion, (we do

Statement of the Case.

not assert there was any,) the court decided, as an independent ground of estoppel, that plaintiff was guilty of laches, and that was sufficient to sustain its judgment.

The case must, therefore, be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and it is so ordered.

CORRALITOS COMPANY v. UNITED STATES.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

No. 267. Submitted April 24, 1900.- Decided May 28, 1900.

The appellant herein filed its original petition in the Court of Claims against the United States and the Apache Indians on September 6, 1892. Subsequently and by leave of court an amended petition was filed March 2, 1894, from which it appears that the petitioner is a corporation chartered under the laws of the State of New York and doing business in the state of Chihuahua, county of Guleana, Republic of Mexico, and that property to the value of nearly seventy-five thousand dollars, belonging to the petitioner, and situated at the time in the Republic of Mexico, was taken therefrom in 1881 and 1882, and stolen and carried off by the Apache Indians, then in amity with the United States, and brought from the Republic of Mexico into the United States. By virtue of the act of Congress entitled "An act to provide for the adjudication and payment of claims arising from Indian depredations," approved March 3, 1891, judgment for the value of the property thus taken by the Indians was demanded. The United States filed a plea in bar, alleging that the claimant ought not to have and maintain its suit, "because the depredation complained of is alleged to have occurred in the Republic of Mexico, beyond the jurisdiction of the United States and the courts thereof, and that the court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit." The plaintiff demurred to the plea in bar as bad in substance. The Court of Claims overruled the demurrer, sustained the plea in bar, and dismissed the petition. Held that the judgment of the Court of Claims was right, and it must be affirmed.

THE appellant herein filed its original petition in the Court of Claims against the United States and the Apache Indians on September 6, 1892. Subsequently and by leave of court an amended petition was filed March 2, 1894, from which it ap

Opinion of the Court.

pears that the petitioner is a corporation chartered under the laws of the State of New York and doing business in the state of Chihuahua, county of Guleana, Republic of Mexico, and that property to the value of nearly seventy-five thousand dollars, belonging to the petitioner, and situated at the time in the Republic of Mexico, was taken therefrom in 1881 and 1882, and stolen and carried off by the Apache Indians, then in amity with the United States, and brought from the Republic of Mexico into the United States. By virtue of the act of Congress entitled "An act to provide for the adjudication and payment of claims arising from Indian depredations," approved March 3, 1891, c. 538, 26 Stat. 851, judgment for the value of the property thus taken by the Indians was demanded.

The United States filed a plea in bar, alleging that the claimant ought not to have and maintain its suit," because the depredation complained of is alleged to have occurred in the Republic of Mexico, beyond the jurisdiction of the United States and the courts thereof, and that the court, therefore, had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit."

The plaintiff demurred to the plea in bar as bad in substance. The Court of Claims overruled the demurrer, sustained the plea in bar, and dismissed the petition. 33 C. Cl. 342. The petitioner appealed from that judgment to this court.

Mr. John Critcher for appellant.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Thompson and Mr. Lincoln B. Smith for appellees.

MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, after stating the foregoing facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

The very satisfactory opinion of the Court of Claims in this case leaves little to be said by us in affirming the judgment of that court.

It would require very plain language from Congress by which to impose a liability on the part of the United States for the seizure or stealing by Indians of property belonging to a citizen