UNITKD STATBS V. MULLAN. 791 �oLserviition. The plats of surveys in the public land-office showed it to be so. A public mining townwas situate on theland, occupied by miners actually engaged in working the mines. No one could be pos- sibly ignorant of the character of the land who would investigate, or, in fact, without actually shutting his eyes against open, public, noto- rious, obvions facts. Mullan must have known, and Avery must have known, the truth, or else they were wilfully ignorant and blind to what the law required them to see and know. They may not have been — probably never were — on the land, and they may have never seen with their own eyes what was going on in that region, but they are bound to know, and wUl be deemed in law to know, what every one must see if he will take the trouble to look at land notorioutily and obviously occupied as this land was ; and the same must be true with respect to the public officers whose duty it was to deal with the land, having in their office plats and surveys showing that there are known coal mines on the land. There must have been either fraud, mistake, or an error of law upon known facts, in the several transac- tions resulting in the patent ; and either is sufficient to annul it, and is Bufficiently presented by the bill. �I am not disposed to think that there was aetual wilful fraud in- tended by either of the defendants, or the officers of the government, It is much more probable that there was an inadvertence or mistake, or an error in law upon the known facts; for it is scarcely to be be- lieved that the facts were not known, at least to the parties in this region. Indeed, they were discussed between the defendant Mullan and the surveyor general of California ; and even Avery, upon his own testimony, had his attention in fact called to the probability that coal might be found on the land; and this was, doubtless, one of the inducements to advance money on it. As coal lands had been sold prior to the act of 1864 as ordinary lands, it may be that there was a misapprehension at the local land-office as to those lands being open to selection; and the facts prior to the listing being presented by parties at Washington, probably ea; joarte.it would seem that they may not have been fully comprehended or appreciated. �If the secretary of the interior was not in fact informed, and the listing was in ignorance of the facts, then there was an inadvertence or mistake. If he did know the facts, he acted beyond the scope of his jurisdiction and authority, and his act was void for want of power. That a bill on behalf of the United States will lie to annul those proceedings is clear from the authorities. ��� �
