BT  Qulnby  V.  CJonlan,  104  U.  S.  420;  Lytle  v.  Arkansas,  22  How.  103;  Gar-
land V.  Wynn,  20  How.  8;  LIndsey  v.  Hawes,  2  Black,  554;  Brush  v.  Ware,
15  Pet.  03  (fraud  in  the  assignment  of  the  warrant  wltb  which  the  land  was
entered).
B8  See  the  distinction  in  Baldwin  ▼.  Stark,  supra  (reversing  Stark  y.  Bald-
win, 7  Neb.  114,  because  the  decisions  of  the  secretary  of  the  interior  on  dis-
puted facts  is  final);  citing  Shepley  y.  Cowan,  91  U.  S.  330;  Marqueze  y.  Fris-
ble,  101  U.  S.  473;  s.  p.  Heath  y.  Wallace,  138  U.  S.  573,  11  Sup.  Ct.  380.
Haydel  v.  Dufresne,  17  How.  23  (as  to  power  of  surveyor  "south  of  Tennes-
see*' to  run  side  lines  back  for  river  lots  in  New  Orleans).  It  was  held  in
Caha  v.  U.  S.,  152  U.  S.  211,  14  Sup..  Ct  513,  that  the  proceedings  in  fbe
land  otfice  on  a  homestead  application  are  so  far  judicial  that  false  swearing
therein  is  perjury.  The  most  important  case  affirming  the  quasi  judicial
power  of  the  secretary  of  the  interior  Is  Secretary  of  Interior  v.  McGarrahan,
9  Wall.  298.  See  cases  in  next  note  (town-site  commissioners  cannot  be  com-
pelled to  act  till  an  appeal  to  the  secretary  is  disposed  of,  McDaid  v.  Okla-
homa, 150  U.  S.  209,  14  Sup.  Ct.  59);  Carr  v.  Fife,  156  U.  S.  494,  15  Sup.  Ct
427.
o«>  Parley's  Park  Silver  Min.  Co.  y.  Kerr,  130  U.  S.  250,  9  Sup.  Ct.  511.
