Opinion of the Court.

izing the construction of a bridge across a river, and the word "space" is used, where in this act we have the word "span."

It is said that the act nowhere defines the precise direction of the bridge, but leaves that to the discretion of the company. The answer to this is, that by the express terms of the act of Congress the piers of the bridge across the river are required to be placed parallel with the current. To the word “across,” unless it is qualified by some prefix as diagonally or obliquely, there is attached, in ordinary use, but one meaning, and that is a direction opposite to length. This is especially true when it is used in connection with parallel lines. When the piers are placed parallel with the current of the river they are parallel with one another, and the faces of the piers may properly be considered as so many parallel planes. The spans of the bridge are to be less than 160 feet in length, in the clear on each side of the pivot pier of the draw- that is, from the face of the central pier to the face of the next adjacent pier must be a distance of not less than 160 feet in the clear. Now, it is an elementary principle of mathematics that "the distance between two parallel planes is measured on a perpendicular to both."

But if there be any doubt as to the proper construction of this statute, (and we think there is none,) then that construction must be adopted which is most advantageous to the interests of the government. The statute being a grant of a privilege, must be construed most strongly in favor of the grantor. Gildart v. Gladstone, 12 East, 668, 675; Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 11 Pet. 420, 544; Dubuque and Pacific Railroad v. Litchfield, 23 How. 66; The Binghampton Bridge, 3 Wall. 51, 75; Rice v. Railroad Co., 1 Black, 358, 380; Leavenworth, Lawrence and Galveston Railroad v. United States, 92 U. S. 733; Fertilizing Co. v. Hyde Park, 97 U. S. 659.

As persuasive authority in support of the conclusion we have reached with reference to this bridge, may be cited the case of Columbus Insurance Co. v. Peoria Bridge Co., 5 McLean, 70; also the case of Missouri River Packet Co. v. Hannibal and St. Joseph Railroad, 1 McCrary, 281, the latter being a decis

Opinion of the Court.

ion of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri in a case between the identical parties to this suit and concerning this identical bridge.

In this last case, Judge McCrary says: "If it be granted that a measurement along a line which deviates from a course directly across the channel is the proper one, then it would follow that the actual passage way might be less than that required by the act. The greater the deviation from such a direct line, the less would be the available space between the piers. Such a construction of the act would defeat the main purpose which Congress had in view in its enactment."

We are therefore of the opinion that the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri committed no error in its construction of the act of Congress under consideration.

A reversal of the judgment brought here for review is also asked upon the ground that the Supreme Court of Missouri erred in sustaining the Circuit Court of Jackson County in giving to the jury what is called "Plaintiff's Instruction No. 1." This instruction is as follows:

"The jury are instructed that unless the bridge mentioned in the answer had piers which were parallel with the current of the river, and spans of not less than 160 feet in the clear on each side of the pivot pier, then said bridge is an illegal structure and an unlawful obstruction to the navigation of the Missouri River; and if the jury believe from the evidence that it was not such a bridge, and further believe that the plaintiff's boats, Alice and St. Luke, or either of them, while attempting to pass through the draw of the bridge in charge of pilots exercising usual and ordinary care, struck the draw-rest of the bridge, and were thereby damaged, then the jury will find their verdict for the plaintiff as to such boat or boats.'

It is said that by sustaining this instruction the Supreme Court of Missouri held that the mere fact that the bridge had not been constructed as required by the statute rendered the railroad company liable, irrespective of the question whether the improper construction caused the accident; and it is urged that such holding is erroneous.

This, however, does not present any federal question for

Syllabus.

the consideration of this court, and therefore we decline to examine into its merits. Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590; Allen v. Mc Veigh, 107 U. S. 433.

Upon the only questions in this case cognizable by this court, the judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of Missouri is Affirmed.

UNITED STATES v. SAN JACINTO TIN COMPANY.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 887. Argued January 26, 27, 30, 1888. - Decided March 19, 1888.

A suit may be brought by the United States in any court of competent jurisdiction to set aside, cancel, or annul a patent for land issued in its name, on the ground that it was obtained by fraud or mistake.

The initiation and control of such a suit lies with the Attorney General as the head of one of the Executive Departments.

But the right to bring such a suit exists only when the government has an interest in the remedy sought by reason of its interest in the land, or the fraud has been practised on the government and operates to its prejudice, or it is under obligation to some individual to make his title good by setting aside the fraudulent patent, or the duty of the government to the public requires such action.

When it is apparent that the only purpose of bringing the suit is to benefit one of two claimants to the land, and the government has no interest in the matter, the suit must fail.

In the case before us the alleged fraud, for which it is sought to annul the patent, is in the survey of a confirmed Mexican grant, on which the patent was issued; and it is charged that at the time the survey was made the Commissioner of the General Land Office, the Surveyor General for California, the chief clerk of the latter's office, and the deputy who made the survey, were interested in the ownership of the grant, and by fraud made a false location of the land to make it contain valuable ores of tin not within its limits if fairly surveyed.

Of all the officers here charged only Conway, the chief clerk, had any real interest in the claim, and he notified the Surveyor General of his interest, and refused to have anything to do with the survey; it is nowhere shown that he in any manner influenced the location of the survey, and it is denied under oath by all who took part in making it.

The fact is much relied on that some of these officers, after the patent was issued, took shares in a joint stock corporation organized to work the VOL. CXXV-18

Opinion of the Court.

mine, but there is no proof that the shares were a voluntary gift, or were for services rendered in locating the survey, and the fairness of the purchase of these shares after the patent issued is sustained by affirmative testimony.

The fact that this survey was contested at every step by interested parties, and was returned to the surveyor's office for correction, was twice before that office and twice before the Commissioner in Washington, and finally decided after six months' consideration by the Secretary of the Interior, confirming the decision of the Land Office, affords very strong evidence of the correctness and honesty of the survey.

In the Maxwell Land Grant Case, 121 U. S. 325, we expressed ourselves fully in regard to the testimony necessary to enable a court of chancery to set aside such a solemn instrument as a patent of the United States. It was there said, that when in a court of equity it is proposed to set aside, to annul, or to correct a written instrument for fraud or mistake in the execution of the instrument itself, the testimony on which this is done must be clear, unequivocal, and convincing, and that it cannot be done upon a bare preponderance of evidence which leaves the issue in doubt." There is no such convincing evidence of fraud in the present case.

BILL in equity to set aside a patent of public land. Decree dismissing the bill, from which complainant appealed. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. G. Wiley Wells for appellant.

Mr. William M. Stewart for appellees.

MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.

The suit in this case, which was a bill in chancery filed April 10, 1883, in the Circuit Court for the District of California, purports to be brought by the Attorney General on behalf of the United States against the San Jacinto Tin Company, the Riverside Canal Company, and the Riverside Land and Irrigating Company. These corporations are alleged to be in possession of a large body of land, nearly eleven square leagues in extent, for which a patent was issued by the United States on the 26th day of October, 1867, to Maria del Rosario Estudillo de Aguirre, and her heirs and assigns. The object of the bill is to set aside this patent, and have it declared void,

Opinion of the Court.

upon the ground that the land described in the survey, which description is a part of the patent, is not the land granted by the Mexican government to said Maria, nor that which was confirmed to her under the proceedings before the land commission, and by the judgment of the District Court of the United States, and by this court also on appeal. The essential feature of the grievance relied on by the complainant is, that this survey was thus located by fraud to include different and more valuable land than that granted by Mexico and confirmed by the courts, and on account of this fraud it is prayed that the survey and patent be set aside and annulled.

Perhaps the nature of this proceeding cannot be better stated than in the language that heads the brief or printed argument of the appellant, who was plaintiff below. It is as follows:

"This brief is intended to establish the following general proposition, viz.: That the lands hereinafter described as patented to Maria del Rosario de Aguirre, and her heirs and assigns, on the 26th day of October, 1867, were obtained from the United States by a fraudulent survey of the lands described therein in violation of the decree of the court; and that the persons engaged in said fraudulent survey were the beneficiaries thereof; and that, by reason thereof, said patent to the same is void, and should be set aside, vacated, and annulled."

The case was heard in the Circuit Court on the bill, answer, replication, and voluminous testimony, by the Circuit and District Judges sitting together, who concurred in the decree dismissing the bill.

The bill sets out a grant to one Maria del Rosario Estudillo de Aguirre of the surplus or "sobrante" of the Ranchos of San Jacinto Viejo y Nuevo, or the overplus which remains in the Ranchos of Old and New San Jacinto, the survey thereof to commence from the boundaries of Don José Antonio Estudillo and Don Miguel Pedrorena. It alleges that this grant was afterwards confirmed by the District Court of California on appeal from the land commission. Upon an appeal taken from that court to the Supreme Court of the United States its judgment was affirmed. The decision of the land commission