LAND OFFICE. A government bureau established in 1812, originally connected with the treasury, but since 1849 forming a divi sion of the Department of the Interior.
The commissioner of the general land of fice performs, under direction of the Secre tary of the Interior, all executive duties ap pertaining to the surveying and sales of the public lands of the United States, or in any wise respecting such public lands, and also such as relate to private grants of land, and the issuing of patents for all land under the authority of the government; R. S. U. S. 446-461; he has absolute jurisdiction of any particular grant of public land ; Catholic Bishop of Nesqually v. Gibbon, 158 U. S. 155, 15 Sup. Ct. 779, 39 L. Ed. 931; he has the power to supervise the action of the officers of a local land office and to annul a fraudu lent entry, but his action is not conclusive; 1J. S. v. Steenerson, 50 Fed. 504, 1 C. C. A. 552, 4 U. S. App. 332 ; and the courts are not concluded by the decision of the land de partment on a question of law; Wisconsin Cent. R. Co. v. Forsythe, 159 U. S. 46, 15 Sup. Ct. 1020, 40 L. Ed. 71.
The general land office has charge of the record of title to the vast area known as the public domain, and all business pertaining to the survey, disposition, and patenting of the public lands of the United States is trans acted through it or under its order and su pervision. All questions of fact decided by the general land office are binding every where, and injunctions and mandamus pro ceedings will not lie against its officers; Litchfield v. The Register, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 575, 19 L. Ed. 681; Gaines v. Thompson, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 347, 19 L. Ed. 62; The Secre tary v. McGarrahan, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 298, 19 L. Ed. 579 ; but a court of equity, after the title has passed from the United States, may relieve against mistakes of law in col lateral proceedings, but it must be clear that a mistake of law has been committed ; Moore v, Robbins, 96 U. S. 535, 24 L. Ed. 848; and if the alleged mistake be a mixed one of law and fact so that the court cannot sepa rate it so as to see clearly where the mistake of law is, the decision is conclusive ; Mar quez v. Frisbie, 101 U. S. 476, 25 L. Ed. 800.
Decisions of the land office upon ques tions of fact within their jurisdiction can not be reviewed in a collateral proceeding ; Stoneroad v. Stoneroad, 158 U. S. 240, 15 Sup. Ct. 822, 39 L. Ed. 966. Its construction upon an act of congress and its usage for eighteen years is entitled to considerable weight; U. S. v. Ry.. Co., 148 U. S. 562, 13 Sup. Ct. 724, 37 L. Ed. 560. Its decisions upon questions of fact are conclusive; Cath olic Bishop of Nesqually v. Gibbon, 158 U. S. 155, 15 Sup. Ct. 779, 39 L. Ed. 931. Its rules and regulations have the effect and force of law on the due observance of which all citi zens have the right to rely ; Germania Iron Co. v. U. S., 58 Fed. 334, 7 C. C. A. 256, 19 U. S. App. 10.
In all matters confided by law to their examination and decision the United States land officers act judicially, and their de cisions are as final as those of other courts ; State v. Bachelder, 5 Minn. 223 (Gil. 178), 80 Am. Dec. 410 ; and although such action is generally conclusive, the land office, up to the issuing of the patent in their divestiture of title, cannot by its subsequent action upon a fictitious claim defeat rights already vest ed. See LAND PATENT.
In a bill which seeks to show that a de cision of the land department was procured by fraud, it must be shown that some trick or deceit was practised on the officers of the department. Where such a bill attacks such a decision on the ground that the officers of the department have misconstrued and mis applied the law, it must set out the evidence and what the department found the facts to be, so that the court can separate the de partment's finding of facts from its conclu tice of a contest before the land department to the predecessors in title of a claimant ; Durango Land & Coal Co. v. Evans, 80 Fed. 425, 25 C. C. A. 523.