the parties that the lessee or his assigns would not find it advantageous to renew at the end of ninety-nine years. The lessees were required to put substantial buildings upon the lots. And all the circumstances show that the parties contemplated that long before the expiration of the lease, the lands demised would be in the midst of a real, and not a "paper" city.

Moreover, the theory that it was intended to separate the right to the rentals until the year 1900 from the right to those that would accrue under renewals of the term, presupposes that the parties intended to separate the ground rents from the reversion. But such a separation is hardly conceivable. The only real security that the lessor had for the payment of the rents was the right reserved to him to enter and repossess the land until the arrearages were paid, or to terminate the lease should they not be paid. It is obvious that if the owner of the ground rents had no right to the estate upon the termination of the lease, his action in terminating it would benefit not himself, but the owner of the reversion. In short, this view would leave the payments to accrue during the residue of the ninety-nine years, no longer entitled to be designated as "ground rents." They would in effect stand as ordinary choses-in-action, resting for security upon the personal responsibility of the lessees, or their assignees in possession; subject to be rendered valueless by the insolvency of the lessee, or perhaps defeated, so far as the assignee's liability was concerned, by an assignment to a pauper. Valliant v. Dodemede, 2 Atk. 546; 26 Eng. Reprint, 728; Lekeux v. Nash, 2 Stra. 1221.

Nor is it reasonable to suppose that the parties intended to reserve in Blodget any estate in the lands, present or future. We say the parties, because in equity the decree, and the deed made thereunder, must, we think, be deemed to be the act of Blodget as well as of Bickley and the other parties to the cause.

The action was not, as it has been termed by counsel, a "creditor's suit." It was a foreclosure suit, brought to enforce the mortgage that Blodget had given for the purpose of securing to the fortunate holders of winning tickets in his much advertised lottery the prizes ne had promised them. That all of Blodget's interest in the lands was pledged under the mortgage has already been stated; that he recognized his equitable obligation is evident from the record. In the common law action brought by Bickley against him in Philadelphia, he agreed that the jury might act as arbitrators not only with respect to the amount of money due from him to Bickley, but with respect to enforcing the award upon his land in the District of Columbia. When the foreclosure suit was commenced, he aided it by admissions, consents, and stipulations, showing himself in every way willing to forward the object aimed at by Bickley, namely, to subject the mortgaged property to the performance of his obligations arising out of the lottery scheme.

It was clearly the purpose to sell all the beneficial interest that Blodget had in the several plots in question, subject to the leases. This reserved interest was denominated "ground rents," (using a phrase evidently in popular use), without distinction as to their duration, and therefore presumably meaning that they should be perpetual, as well as the leases under which they were derived; but subject, of course, to commutation by the exercise of the lessee's option of purchase at an amount of which the annual rental was the equivalent of eight per centum.

The proceedings in the Bickley-Blodget suit show beyond cavil or question that it was the purpose not only of the parties to the action, but of the court, that all of Elodget's right, title and interest in Lot 20 should be sold towards paying the debt he owed to the complainant. The reservation of any interest in Blodget was inconsistent with

If

the very object of the suit. The reversion would be practically valueless for approximately ninety years; its then present purchase-value would be altogether insignificant. A purpose to reserve it in Elodget is not supposable. it had been thought of as a substantial interest, separate from that described as "ground rents," it would have been mentioned, as it was mentioned, and in terms included, in the decree made on the supplemental bill. In no event would Blodget have been permitted to retain it.

Nor is there any room to doubt that bidders at the sale, including the successful bidders who became the purchasers, supposed that in buying the "ground rents" they were buying an investment security representing the substantial fruits, and the entire fruits, of ownership reserved by Blodget on the leases; and not for mere terms of ninety nine years, but for such terms "renewable forever." That the interest of Blodget sold for its fair market value is beyond question, for otherwise the court would not have confirmed the sales.

After the sales were confirmed, only two things remained to be done in order to carry the decree of the court into effect so far as concerned the passing of title. One was "The payment of the whole purchase money for the respective parts of the said property so sold;" the other was that "the said trustee by a deed or deeds good and operative in law, to be acknowledged, etc., shall give, grant, bargain and sell, release and confirm to the respective purchasers and their heirs respectively" the property sold; with Peter and Munroe joining, in order to make sure that no legal title should remain outstanding.

There is no doubt that the purchase price was paid; indeed, one of the purchasers in question was Bickley, the complainant, for whose benefit the sale was made. Such payment being made, the purchasers at once became the owners, in equity, of the reversionary interest of

Blodget. But the decree entitled them to the legal title.

And deeds of conveyance were made in order to carry out the decree. But one thing was lacking; the deeds were not "good and operative in law," because, although they described well enough according to the common intent what was intended to be conveyed, they did not define it according to the legal formula. And so the form of the deeds was undoubtedly defective. This, upon all the evidence, was a mistake, pure and simple. And it was the mistake of a public officer. To say that when such a mistake occurs in carrying out the decree of a court of equity, a court possessed of full jurisdiction over the subject-matter and all the parties-harmful consequences shall be permitted to fall upon the purchasers who, in reliance upon the apparent regularity of the proceedings, have paid the purchase-money to the officer of the court in the belief that they would get as good a title as the court could give them, and as good as the court could require any of the parties before it to give them,— would be nothing less than a reproach upon the administration of justice.

The equitable principles upon which our decision must turn, are simple and fundamental. Equity regards that as done which ought to be done. It looks to the true intent and meaning, rather than to the form. It relieves against the consequences of accident and mistake, as well as of fraud.

In Lytle v. State of Arkansas, 9 How. 314, 333, this court (by Mr. Justice McLean) said: “It is a well established principle, that where an individual in the prosecution of a right does everything which the law requires him to do, and he fails to attain his right by the misconduct or neglect of a public officer, the law will protect him." In Williams v. United States, 138 U. S. 514, 517, the court (by Mr. Justice Brewer), said: "It cannot be doubted

that inadvertence and mistake are, equally with fraud and wrong, grounds for judicial interference to divest a title acquired thereby. This is equally true, in transactions between individuals, and in those between the government and its patentee. If, through inadvertence and mistake, a wrong description is placed in a deed by an individual, and property not intended to be conveyed is conveyed, can there be any doubt of the jurisdiction of a court of equity to interfere and restore to the party the title which he never intended to convey? So of any other inadvertence and mistake, vital in its nature, by which a title is conveyed when it ought not to have been conveyed." See, also, Morrison v. Stalnaker, 104 U. S. 213; Ard v. Brandon, 156 U. S. 537, 541; Duluth & Iron Range R. Co. v. Roy, 173 U. S. 587, 590.

In our opinion the averments of the bill herein, admitted by the demurrer, show that, with respect to the Daugherty and Frethy lots, the appellees have a good title in equity, but not at law, as against the appellant, and therefore are entitled to restrain him, and those claiming under him, from prosecuting an action of ejectment, or otherwise asserting title to those plots. And, with respect to the Fennell plot, the same result follows, for reasons above given, although appellees' title, besides being good in equity as against that of the appellant, is also good at law, and therefore might have been availed of as a legal defense.

Decree affirmed.