Opinion of the Court. of the land to the Nebraska Land and Live Stock Company, and the latter company had sold the greater part of the land to actual settlers, who had settled upon the same in good faith, relying upon the fact that the taxes for the years 1873 to 1877, both inclusive, were not a lien upon it, and had put on it a large amount of improvements; that, as the county of Boone had allowed them to buy the land and settle upon it, and had taken no steps for a period of over five years after the decree was entered, it ought to be estopped, and its laches had been so great that it would be inequitable to set aside the decree, which would have the effect to create a lien upon all of said land so sold to, and settled upon by, the persons who had bought in good faith and knew nothing about any effort that would be made to set aside the decree; that, in June, 1880, the railroad company sold to the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company 77,229 acres of the land, the latter company having no knowledge that any effort would ever be made to set aside the decree, but purchasing in good faith, believing that the taxes in question were no liens upon the land; that it would not have purchased had it known that there would be any attempt to open up the decree; that, prior to the bringing of this suit, the last-mentioned company had sold 75,000 acres of the land, largely to actual settlers, mostly in tracts of 160 acres to each, and at much expense had induced persons to buy, relying on the fact that the taxes in question had been declared null and void, a large part of the lands sold by both of the railroad companies having been sold in 1879 and 1880; that, under the circumstances Boone County ought to be estopped, and its laches had been so great that it could not now disturb the settlers who had bought in good faith; that it ought not to maintain this suit, because it had failed to bring the same within four years from the time it discovered the pretended fraud set up in the bill; that it allowed over five years to elapse after it had full knowledge of the transaction as to the entry of the decree complained of, before it took any steps to annul the same; that it was barred of any relief by the statute of limitations of Nebraska, as well as by laches in not commencing this suit until the lands had been sold to Opinion of the Court. parties who knew nothing about the circumstances under which the decree was entered; and that the board of county commissioners, and each one of them, and the officers and taxpayers of the county, had full knowledge of all the circumstances under which the decree of March 8, 1878, was entered, more than four years before this suit was brought. There was a replication to the answer, proofs were taken, and the Circuit Court, on a hearing, dismissed the bill for want of equity, on the ground of laches on the part of the plaintiff. From that decree the plaintiff has appealed to this court. The appellant contends (1) that the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction in the Hunnewell case; (2) that the taxes in question were valid; (3) that the proceedings to secure the decree cancelling the taxes were a fraud on the appellant and an imposition on the court; (4) that, if those proceedings were not void for fraud, they were void for want of legal authority in the board of county commissioners to stipulate that the decree be entered cancelling the taxes; and (5) that this suit is not barred by the statute of limitations or by laches. We are of opinion that this suit was barred by the statute of limitations of the State of Nebraska and by laches, and that the bill was properly dismissed. By section 12, of title 2, of chapter 57, of the General Statutes of Nebraska, of 1873, it is provided that an action for relief on the ground of fraud can only be commenced within four years after the cause of action shall have accrued, but the cause of action in such case shall not be deemed to have accrued until the discovery of the fraud. There is no allegation in the bill in this case that the county or its officers were, at any time after the entry of the decree of March 8, 1878, ignorant of the facts and circumstances connected with and attending its entry. The board of county commissioners consisted of three persons, of whom two were a controlling quorum. It appears from the evidence that the personnel of the board was changed on the 1st of January, 1879, more than four years and five months before this bill was filed, Wilkinson and Bowman having gone out of office by or before January Opinion of the Court. 1, 1879. There is no allegation in the bill, nor is there any proof, that the board of county commissioners was under hostile control down to a period within four years of the filing of the bill; nor is there any averment in the bill as to the time when the alleged fraud was discovered. The decree was a matter of public record. It decreed that the taxes generally were void, meaning all of them, as alleged in the bill filed by Hunnewell, and it granted a perpetual injunction against the collection of all the taxes. The parties who took part in the proceedings were accessible; Smith was then alive, and Sessions, who was examined as a witness in this case, could have been inquired of. Stearns v. Page, 7 How. 819; Moore v. Greene, 19 How. 69; Beaubien v. Beaubien, 23 How. 190; Badger v. Badger, 2 Wall. 87, 95; Case of Broderick's Will, 21 Wall. 503, 518; Brown v. County of Buena Vista, 95 U. S. 157; Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U. S. 135; Graham v. Boston, Hartford &c. Railroad, 118 U. S. 161; Kirby v. Lake Shore &c. Railroad, 120 U. S. 130; Société Foncière &c. v. Milliken, 135 U. S. 304; Norris v. Ilaggin, 136 U. S. 386, 392; Mackall v. Casilear, 137 U. S. 556, 566. The appellant seeks to apply to the county and its officers in this case the established rule that laches will not be imputed to a government for a failure on the part of its officers to perform their duty. United States v. Kirkpatrick, 9 Wheat. 720; United States v. Van Zandt, 11 Wheat. 184; United States v. Nicholl, 12 Wheat. 505; Dox v. Postmaster General, 1 Pet. 325; Gaussen v. United States, 97 U. S. 584. But this doctrine is not extended to such a municipal corporation as the county of Boone. Metropolitan Railroad v. District of Columbia, 132 U. S. 1, 11, 12. The principle of ratification by laches or delay is as applicable to such a municipal corporation as it is to a private corporation or to an individual person. 1 Dillon on Municipal Corporations, 4th ed. § 548; Clark v. City of Washington, 12 Wheat. 40; School Directors v. Georges, 50 Missouri, 194; City of Cincinnati v. Evans, 5 Ohio St. 194. The statute of limitations of Nebraska makes no exception in favor of such a municipal corporation as the county of Boone, and the doctrine of laches applies to it and to its board of county commissioners. Syllabus. By the General Statutes of Nebraska, of 1873, chapter 13, section 1, the county was made a body corporate, and it was provided by section 4 that suits by or against it should be brought by or against the board of county commissioners of the county, and, by other provisions, power was conferred upon the board to levy and collect taxes. It, therefore, had authority to act for the county in respect to the collection of taxes. Indeed, that is its only authority for the bringing of the present suit, coupled with the provision found in section 93, of chapter 13, of the General Statutes of Nebraska, of 1873, that the county commissioners are authorized to employ attorneys in any case, either civil or criminal, in which their county is interested, when the cause is taken to the Supreme Court of the State, or before any United States court, and are authorized to pay a reasonable compensation for such services. Decree affirmed. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER did not sit in this case, or take any part in its decision. REDFIELD v. BARTELS. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 269. Argued March 30, 1891.- Decided April 20, 1891. On the 16th of November, 1863, plaintiffs brought suit to recover customs duties illegally exacted, laying the ad damnum at $1500. On the 8th of January, 1881, they amended their claim, increasing the ad damnum to $20,000. There was no interest count in the declaration, and it was doubtful whether interest was at first specially declared for in any way. No account was rendered or demand made prior to the commencement of the suit, nor was any bill of particulars furnished at that time. On the 11th of May, 1882, a bill of particulars was for the first time served. The court below gave judgment for $14,394.95, with interest from the date of the several payments. Held, on the facts set forth at length in the opinion, showing laches on the part of plaintiffs, that they were only entitled to judgment for $1500 with interest from November 16, 1863, and $12,894,95, with interest from January 8, 1881. Opinion of the Court. THE case is stated in the opinion Mr. Assistant Attorney General Maury for plaintiff in error. Mr. S. F. Phillips and Mr. F. D. McKenney for defendants in error. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court. This suit was brought by George F. W. Bartels and others in the New York Supreme Court, November 12, 1863, against Redfield, then late collector of the port of New York, to recover back the sum of fifteen hundred dollars duties at the rate of forty per cent under Schedule B of the act of July 30, 1846, 9 Stat. 42, c. 74, that had been unlawfully assessed on charges for inland transportation on a large number of importations of champagne wine invoiced from Rheims, and exported from the port of Havre, and on one-half of one per centum excess of commissions on the said importations. Service was made November 16, 1863, and notice of appearance given, and bill of particulars and copy of complaint demanded by defendant, and the suit removed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York by certiorari on February 20, 1864. The declaration was filed March 30, 1864, and consisted of the common counts, alleging an indebtedness in the sum of $1500, for money lent and advanced; paid, laid out and expended; had and received; and due upon an account stated; and the ad damnum was placed at $1500. On April 20, 1864, the defendant filed a plea of the general issue, and on the next day, April 21, a jury was called and sworn in this and some other cases, and a verdict rendered in these terms: By consent of counsel the jury find a verdict for the plaintiffs in the above-entitled action for excess of duty with interest thereon illegally exacted from plaintiffs and paid under protest to defendant, and not barred by the statute of limitations, on commissions over one and one-half per centum on merchandise imported by the plaintiffs at New York, from |