LAND PATENT. A muniment of title is sued by a government or state for the con veyance of some portion of the public do main.
The issue of a land patent is the convey ance of public lands to the person or per sons who, by compliance with the law, have become entitled thereto under a land grant (q. v.). It is a conveyance by the govern ment when it has any interest to convey. Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 488, 7 Sup. Ct. 985, 30 L. Ed. 1039.
A patent issued under the act of con gress of March 3, 1851, to settle land titles under the Mexican grant, "is not only the deed of the United States, but it is a solemn record of the government, of its action and judgment With respect to the title of the claimant existing at the date of the ces sion. By it the sovereign power, which alone could determine the matter, declares that the previous grant was genuine; that the claim under it was valid and entitled to recognition and confirmation by the law of nations and the stipulations of the treaty ; and that the grant was located, or might have been located, by the former govern ment, and is correctly located by the new government, so as to embrace the premises as they are surveyed and described. Whilst this declaration remains of record, the gov ernment itself cannot question its verity, nor can parties claiming through the gov ernment by title subsequent." Field, C. 'J., in Teschemacher v. Thompson, 18 Cal. 11, 26, 79 Am. Dec. 151.
Nature and effect of patents generally. A grant of land is a public law standing on the statute books of the state, and is notice to every subsequent purchaser under any conflicting sale made afterward ; Wineman v. Gastrell, 54 Fed. 819, 4 C. C. A. 596, 2 U. S. App. 581. The final certificate or receipt acknowledging the payment in full by a homesteader or pre-emptor is not in „legal effect a conveyance of the land ; U. S. v. Steenerson, 50 Fed. 504, 1 C. C. A. 552, 4 U. S. App. 332. It transfers the full equitable title; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Smith, 159 U. S. 66, 15 Sup. Ct. 994, 40 L. Ed. 77. A patent alone passes land from the 'United States to the grantee ; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 498, 10 L. Ed. 264; not only as it was at the time of the survey, but as it is at the date of the patent ; Jefferis v. Land
Co., 134 U. S.' 178, 10 Sup. Ct. 518, 33 L. Ed. 872; and nothing passes a perfect title to public lands but a patent, except where con gress grants lands in words of present grant ; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 498, 10 L. Ed. 264; though its delivery to the paten • tee is not essential to pass the title; U. S. v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 378, 26 L. Ed. 167; and the United States cannot by authori ty of its own officers invalidate that pat ent by the issuing of a second one for the same property ; Iron Silver Min. Co. v. Camp bell, 135 U. S. 286, 10 Sup. Ct. 765, 34 L. Ed. 155 ; see Morton v. Nebraska, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 660, 22 L. Ed. 639; Doe v. Winn, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 380, 6 L. Ed. 500; or divest the title by giving a patent to another ; Speck v. Riggin, 40 Mo. 406. Its office is to define the land; Owens v. Jackson, 9 Cal. 322; it has been said to be equivalent to a deed; Leese v. Clark, 20 Cal. 387. After land has been sold by certificate, the United States holds the legal title until the patent issues, but only in trust for the purchaser; and the officers can act ministerially and issue it to him, and cannot act judicial ly and determine that another claimant is entitled to it ; Arnold v. Grimes, 2 Ia. 1. A patent is conclusive against all whose rights commence subsequently to its date; Hoof: eagle v. Anderson, 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 212, 5 L. Ed. 437; it conveys the legal title and leaves the equities open; Brush v. Ware, 15 Pet. (U. S.) 93, 10 L. Ed. 672. It relates back to the date of purchase, and title to real estate, acquired under an execution sale, cannot be defeated by the issuing of a patent to the execution defendant, bearing date subsequent to the sale by the sheriff ; Cavender v. Smith's Heirs, 5 Ia. 157. But a patent for public land will mot be held to take effect by virtue of the doctrine of rela tion, as of the date of the initial step taken by the patentee, where it appears that the rights by him acquired under such initial step were lost by his lack of diligence, and third parties' rights had intervened ; Evans v. Coal Co., 80 Fed. 433, 25 C. C. A. 531.