Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/486

tniITED STATES V. DB MOTT. 47^ �Pattebson, Commissioner. There is nothing of a criminal nature involved in this information. The defendant appeared "without any formai service of the warrant to bring him before the commissioner. Nor wUi any commitment or trial on the charge affect unfavorably his charaoter or standing in the community where he resides. �The allegation is met, contested, and denied fuUy and squarely on the part of the defendant. His defence, virtually, is a justification of the aots on which he is summoned here^ because he was the agent of the legal owner of the land where the offence was committed, who had been placed in aetual possession thereof, under the order of a competent judicial tribunal, executed by the proper officer. It is said the judg- ment thus obtained against the railroad company was founded on the fact that they never had made any compensation to the owner for the right of way taken for the construction of their track, This is not material to be shown. The decree of the court is sufficient to establish the legal right of the owner to the possession of the property. Nor could the fact of want of remuneration by the relators to such owner, if proven in the case, enter as an element for consideration here. The United States were no party to any laches by the relators in . that respect, nor are they alleged to. have been or to be cog- nizant of or privy to that failure by this company, or any preceding organization. In the absence of notice, or of the fact being brought to their knowledge, they would be justified in regardîng the title of the relators to the land on which their tracks were laid to be as good as that of any other road over which their mails were carried. They found a road con- structed and in running order, and recognized and used it for postal service, just as they do an ordinary highway. To ap- ply the principle of caveat emptor to them in such cases, and say they were bound to look up the title of every railroad and spur and branch, and ascertain if it was clear of claim and cloud, would seem to impair, to a serions extent, the ef&ciency and benefit of the service. �That the defendant bas proved he was acting as the agent of the legal owner of the premises is clear. There can be ����