
    MICHIGAN LAND & LUMBER CO., Limited, v. PACK et al. SAME v. BUTMAN.
    (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    May 7, 1895.)
    Nos. 179 and 180.
    Public Lands — Swamp-Land Act — Vesting op Title — Act March 8, 1857.
    Upon facts similar to those In Lumber Co. v. Rust, 68 Fed. 155, except that there had been, in this case, no approval of i.he lists of lands, including those in controversy, by the secretary of the interior, but only a selection thereof by the surveyor general and report by him to the commissioner of the land office, the lists so reported having, afterwards, been superseded by other lists made in accordance with corrected surveys, held, that such selection was not confirmed by Act March 3, 1857 (11 Stat. 251).
    Error to tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe Eastern . District of Michigan.
    These were two actions of ejectment by tbe Michigan Land & Lumber Company, Limited, against Pack, Woods & Co. and Myron Butman, respectively. Judgment was rendered in the circuit court for tbe defendant in each case. Plaintiff brings error.
    Affirmed.
    J. W. Cbamplin and Frank E. Robson, for plaintiff in error.
    Hanchett, Stark & Hanchett and Humphrey & Grant, for defendants in error.
    Before TAFT and LURTON, Circuit Judges, and SEVERENS, District Judge.
   SEVERENS, District Judge.

The controlling facts in each of these cases are similar to those involved in the case of Same Plaintiff v. Rust (No. 178, just decided) 68 Fed. 155, and are subject to the application of the same principles upon which that decision rests. The most material difference in the facts consists in this: that in these cases there was no approval and certification of the lands in suit by the secretary of the interior, as in the Rust Case, but the plaintiff founds its title upon the selection of lists of swamp lands made by the surveyor general, and reported to the commissioner of the general land office, in pursuance of the instructions of the commissioner of November 21, 1850, in which the surveyor general was directed to tender the option to the state in respect to the basis on which the granted lands should be identified. Those lists, as has been said, were never approved by the secretary, but were superseded by other lists, which were made in correction of the mistakes in the former lists, upon the. ascertainment of the frauds and errors of the original survey. The old lists had been thus superseded before the passage of the act of March 3, 1857. We are entirely unable to agree with the plaintiff in its contention that the original selection of the surveyor general was confirmed by that act. We do not think that congress intended to resurrect the lists which had been already discarded because erroneous. But we have discussed this subject in the principal case, and indicated the grounds of our opinion so fully that it is unnecessary to repeat them here. There is no other difference in the essential facts of the eases which requires especial consideration. The details vary, but not enough to affect: the main drift of the facts or.the principles applicable to them. We think the judgment in each of these cases should be affirmed.  