KNKVALE(i r» HYDE. i 6^3 �title to the land had therefore vested in the ^oiapany before any interest in it whatever had corne to Cropsey, the grantor of the defendant. �3. The rights of the parties in this case are not affected by the question of notice. No other notice was required of the Company than filing its map with the secretary of the interior. No other aot was necessary on the part of the company to establish its right to the land. No other act could be done by the company towards perfecting the title nntil so much of the road was built as authorized it to apply for patents for the land. And it will scarcely be contended that until the patents issued any location by purchase from the govem- ment could corne in and take it up as vacant land. It is probable that the strict legal title passed to the state of Kan- sas for the use pf the comp8|i^y by t|ie apt of fiUng the map, and related back to the date of the statute, which makes a grant to the ^tein prceseiUi i)f lands to be ascertained by the act of locating the route qf the road. But it is sufficient to say that on the filing of the "map there was vested in the company the equitable ownershipof the ItmtJ- — an equity which could oiily be defeated byi falilUre to perftiriii the conditions of the grant. f he power in the ojffices of the land 'department to sell the land was gone, and the patent issued fcy them con- ferred no real right, though it gave an; app?i?:ent title.; ,i It is not a case, therefore, of noticeibuta cas§ qf ,pj:iqrity pf .jright, in which the prier right muet pre^ail. ; If i1^ .;srei5jB qtherwise, the filing pf the map iia the ofipioe of the; compiissionf i; of the general land-ofi&ee at Washington, the paly notice the com- pany could give, was sufficient to require Cropsey to take notice �Ofit. .; �4. With the question of forf eiture, by reaspn of failure to complete the road, neither defendant nor bis grantor has anything to do. They cannot declare such a failure, nor does a loss of the title arise as a legal consequence out of such a failure. The sale to defendant's grantor was not in- tended to assert such a forfeiture, beoause at the date of that eale no ground of forfeiture existed. This court, however, has settled the doctrine .that in cases of this class the right to ��� �
