Colorado Coal & Iron Co. v. United States

Citations

• 123 U.S. 307
• 8 S. Ct. 131
• 31 L. Ed. 182
• 1887 U.S. LEXIS 2174

Syllabus

<p>APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO.</p> <p>To a bill in equity to cancel a patent of land from the United States to a preemptor, solely on the gfouiid that there was no actual settlement and improvement on the land,’ as falsely set out in affidavits in support of the preemption claim, the defence of a bona fide purchaser without notice is perfect.</p> <p>In a suit by the United States to cancel a patent of public land the burden of producing the proof and establishing the fraud is on the Government, from which it is not relieved although the proposition which it is bound to establish may be of a negative nature.</p> <p>When a plaintiff’s right of action is grounded on a negative allegation, which is an essential element in his case, or which involves a charge of criminal neglect of duty or fraud by an official, the burden is on him to prove that allegation, the legal presumption being in favor of the party-charged.</p> <p>In a proceeding in equity against an innocent purchaser to set aside a patent of public land for 'fraud in which it is charged that an officer of the United States, who was concerned in its issue, participated, the burden of establishing his title is not cast upon the defendant by raising a suspicion, however strong, of- the alleged fraud and wrongdoing of the officer, if the officer could have been examined and was not.</p> <p>In this case the United States sought to cancel a number of patents to preemptors, the lands having passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser, on the ground that there were no actual settlements and improvements, but that the alleged preemWors were fictitious persons, who did not exist, and that these facts were known to the register and receiver, through whose fraudulent act in this respect the patents were obtained. Having established that there were no such settlements and improvements, the plaintiffs introduced'the evidence of many witnesses residing in the vicinity th