Byron Waters and John T. Morgan, for appellant.
Matt. G. Reynolds, for appellees.
Mr. Justice BREWER delivered the opinion of the court.
So far as the question of title is concerned, this case is similar to the one immediately perceding. Camou v. U. S., 18 Sup. Ct. 855. For reasons therein stated, the decree of the court of private land claims will be reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings. It is true, as suggested in its opinion, the court of private land claims thought that there was no sufficient location of the tract in controversy, and that probably the grant was void for uncertainty in the description of the property. It may be that this conclusion was right. At the same time, in view of what has been recently said by this court in respect to boundaries, description, and area, we think that justice requires that we reverse the judgment, and remand the case for further proceedings. Perhaps the claimants may be able to satisfactorily identify a tract not larger than the area purchased and paid for which should equitably be recognized as the tract granted.