vacant. Hence the patent issued to Pollock vested a good title in him and those claiming under him.
In our opinion there is also another reason why the plaintiff cannot prevail in this case. Not only was the land in controversy covered by a valid and existing homestead entry at the time the application of the railway company was finally presented to and filed in the local land office, as well as at the time it was approved by the Secretary of the Interior, but subsequently the Land Department accepted scrip tendered by Philander Pollock, and after the scrip had been approved by the Commissioner of the General Land Office a receiver’s receipt was issued and duly recorded, which contained no notice whatever of the fact that any portion of the land was claimed by the railroad company for station grounds. Subsequently patent was issued, purporting to convey to said Pollock the entire 40-acre tract. There is no room for doubt, under the evidence in this case, but that Pollock accepted the title which he received from the government in the best of faith, believing that the entire tract had been conveyed to him subject only to the right of way proper of the railroad company, and that he had not the slightest idea that the railway company claimed any additional portion as station grounds. The undisputed evidence shows that the defendants in this case purchased the premises in good faith, relying upon the title conveyed by the United States government to said Pollock; that in reliance upon such title they paid the grantor full value and caused valuable improvements to be placed on the premises. All this without any assertion or claim of title by the railway company. In these circumstances we believe that the defendants became and are entitled to protection as bona fide purchasers. The doctrine that bona fide purchasers will be protected even in the absence of statute has frequently been recognized by the United States Supreme Court. In construing the adjustment act, the Supreme Court of the United States said:
“There was no need of any legislation to protect a ‘bona fide purchaser.’ This had been settled by repeated decisions of this court. United States v. Burlington, R. Co., 98 U. S. 334, 342, 25 L. Ed. 198; Colorado Coal Co. v. United States, 123 U. S. 307, 313, 31 L. Ed. 182, reaffirmed in United States v. Cal., Land Co., 148 U. S. 31, 41, 37 L. Ed. 354. For in each of those cases it was decided that, although a patent was fraudulently and wrongfully obtained from the government, if the land conveyed was within the jurisdiction of the Land Depart-
