792 FaDBBAL REPORTER. �In Moore v. RobUns, 96 U. S. 533, the court saysupon this point: "If fraud, mistake, error, or wrong bas been done, the courts of jus- tice present the only remedy. These courts are as open to the United States to sue for the cancellation of the deed of conveyance of the land as to individuals; and if the government is the party injured this is the proper course. " A patent is the deed of the government. �In U. S. V. Stone, 2 Wall. 525, the court says: �"A patent is the highest evidence of title, and is conclusive as against the government, and all claiming under junior patents or titles, until it is set aside or annulled by some judicial tribunal. In England this was originally done by sdre facias ; tut a hill in chancery is fovnd a more oonvenient rem- edy. Nor is fraud in the patentee the only groitnd upon which a Mil mil be sustained. Patents are sometimes issued unadvisedly or hy mistake, where the offieer has no authority in law to grant them, or where another party has a higher equity and should have received the patent. In such cases courts of law will pronounce them void. The patent is but evidence of a grant, and the offieer who issues it acts minlsterially, not judicially. If he issues a pat- ent for land reserved from sale by law, such patent is void for want of au- thority. * * * It is contended here by counsel of the United States that the land for which a patent was granted to the appellant was reserved from sale for use of the government, and consequently that the patent was void. And, although no fraud is chargea in the biil, we have no doubt that such a prooeeding in chancery is the proper remedy, and that if the allegations of the MU are supported, that the deoreeofthe court beloio cancelling the patent should be affirmed." �Such a bill is this in relation to lands reserved from selection and patent under the acts in question, and the allegations of the bill are fully sustained by the proofs. Hughes, v. U. S. e Wall. 235, and U. S. V. Hughes, 11 How. 565, and Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 83-4, establish the same principle. �In this case there must have been either fraud, an inadvertence, or mistake, or an error of law upon known facts; for in the very nature of things, in view of the open, public, notorious occupation of the lands, and the extensive mining for coal thereon, it is impossible that there could be any error of judgment as to the facts, had the evidence been laid before the officers of the land department of the government. �An objection is made that the bill is not filed by the attorney gen- erai, and in his name. The bill commences: "The United States of America, by Philip Teare, United States attorney in and for the district of California, brings this bill of complaint, * * • and thereupon your orator complains," etc. It is signed at the foot of ��� �
