726 FBDBBAL BBFOBTEB. �one of constructive fraiid. Waters v. Thorn, 22 Beav. 547 ; Parkist v. Aleay ander, 1 Johns. Ch. 394; Condit v. Blaekwell, 22 N. J. Eq. 481; Banks v. Judah, 8 Conn. 146; Central Tns. Co. v. National Ins. Oo. 14 N. Y. 91; Judah V. Ti-ustees, 23 Ind. 272 ; Huguenin v. Baseley, 14 Ves. 273 ; Lawther V. Lowther, 13 Ves. 102; Selsey v. Rhodes, 2 Sim. & Stu. 41; Fox v. Mack- reth, 2 Bro. Ch. 400; Gibson v.Jeyes, 6 Ves. 278; 1 Story, Eq. Jur. § 311. "An attorney buying from his client can never support it unless he can prove that his diligence to do the best for the vendor has been as great as if he was only an attorney dealing for that vendor with a stranger." GHbson v. Jeyes, supra, per Lord. Eldon. See, also, Howell v. Ransom, 11 Paige, 538; Holman v. Loynes, 4 L. J. Ch. 209; Qihhs v. Daniel, 4 Giff. 1, in which last case the pur- chase by solicitors of a client's equity of redemption was set aside, although another sollcitor had been called in, and although the defendants had ceased to act as solicitors just before the contract. The solicitor called in, however, in this case had not done his duty, and the defendants were awar» of the fact. �Tested by the above rules, which are grounded both upon sound public policy aud authority, there can be no doubt whatever of the entire sou ndness of the decision in the principal case, which, though not novel in princlple, is an interesting application of a salutary and well-settled rule of equity. �Union College of Law, Chicago, January 7, 1882. �Marshall D. Ewell. ���Manning v. San Jacinto Tin Co. �(Circuit Court, D. Galifornia. January 3, 1882.) �1. Location dp Mexican Qbattt — Fraud— Laches. �A Mexlcan land grant, made in 1846, was duly conflrmed by the board of land commissioners, acting under the act of congress of March 3, 1857, the con- firmation was afflrmed by the supreme court of the United States as early as the December tenu, 1863, and proceedings for locating the grant were, under the decree of confirmation, pending botween the United Btates and the claimant under the grant when the grantors of the complainant located certain mining claims under the act of congress of 1866. Subsequently a patent was issued to the claimant under the grant, embracing the land on which these mining claims were located. This bill was flled against the patentee in September, 1880, alleging that the grant was fraudulently located. Reld, that the location was rei adjudicata ; f urther, that the suit was barred by lapse of time. �In Equity. �M. G. Cobb, for complainant. �B. S. Brooks, for defendant. �Sawyer, g. j. Demurrer to the bill. Briefly stated, it is substan- tially alleged that between July 26, 1866, and October 27, 1867, the grantors of complainant, without stating who they are or the particu- lars of their acts, in pursuance of the act of congress of July 26, ,1866, ��� �
