Where the United States has parted with title by a patent legally issued, and upon surveys legally made by itself and approved by the proper department, the title so grant ed cannot be impaired by any subsequent survey made by the government for its own purposes; Cage v, Danks, 13 La. Ann. 128. A patent founded on a void entry and survey nevertheless passes the legal title from the government to the patentee,' but the com mencement of the title is the patent ; Stub blefield v. Boggs, 2 Ohio St. 216. It passes to the patentee every thing connected with the soil, forming any portion of its bed, or fixed to its surface; in short, everything connected with the term "land"; Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal. 199, 79 Am. Dec. 123.
A patent for land is the highest evidence of title and is conclusive as against the gov ernment, and all claiming under junior pat ents or titles, until set aside or annulled, un less it is absolutely void on its face; U. S. v. Stone, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 525, 17 L. Ed. 765; Warren v. Van Brunt, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 646, 22 L. Ed. 219 ; St. Louis Smelting & Ref. Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, 26 L. Ed. 875; the presumption being that it is valid and passes the legal title; Minter v. Crommelin, 18 How. (U. S.) 87, 15 L. Ed. 279. When issued upon confirmation of a claim or a previously exist ing title, it is documentary evidence, having the dignity of a record of the existence of that title or of such equities respecting the claim as justify its recognition and confirmat tion; Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 488, 7 Sup. Ct. 985, 30 L. Ed. 1039 ; it must be inter preted as a whole; its various provisions in connection with each other, and the legal deduction drawn therefrom must be con formable with the document; Brown v. ger, 21 How. (U. S.) 305, 16 L. Ed. 125.
A patent for unimproved lands, no part of which was in the possession of any one at the time it was issued, gives a legal seisin and constructive possession of all the lands within the' survey ; Peyton v. Stith, 5 Pet. (U. S.) 485, 8 L. Ed. 200. The identity of the land must be ascertained by a reasona ble Construction of the patent, but if render ed wholly uncertain by inaccurate descrip tion the grant is void; Boardman v. Reed, 6 Pet. (U. S.) 328, 8 L. Ed. 415.
Government documents are not evidence of titles as against parties claiming pre-ex isting adverse and paramount title; Sabarie go v. Maverick, 124 U. S. 261, 8 Sup. Ct. 461, 31 L. Ed. 430. A patent issued by the United States cannot be avoided or impeached for fraud in a collateral action ; Klein's Heirs v. Argenbright, 26 Ia. 493; but it may be collaterally impeached in any action, and its operation and conveyance defeated, by showing that the department had no juris diction 'to dispose of the lands; Wright v. Roseberry, 121 U. S. 488, 7 Sup. Ct. 985, 30 L. Ed. 1039. Where issued by mistake, in advertence, or other cause, to parties not en titled to it, they will be declared trustees of of the true owner and decreed to convey the title to him ; Bernier v. Bernier, 147 U. S.
242, 13 Sup. Ct. 244, 37 L. Ed. 152. A patent is void at law,• if the grantor state had no title to the' premises embraced in it, or if the officer who issued the patent had no authority to do so ; Knight v. Land Ass'n, 142 U. S. 161, 12 Sup. Ct. 258, 35 L. Ed. 974. In cases of ejectment, where the question is who has the legal title, the patent of the government is unassailable; Sanford v. San ford, 139 U. S. 642, 11 Sup. Ct. 666, 35 L. Ed. 290.
The patent is conclusive evidence that the patentee has complied with the act of congress as concerns improvements on the land, etc. ; Jenkins v. Gibson, 3 La. Ann. 203; it is prima facie evidence that all legal requirements have been complied with; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Cannon, 54 Fed. 252, 4 C. C. A. 303, 7 U. S. App. 507; but a patent fraudulently obtained by illegal is.
sue is void ; McGill v. McGill, 4 La. Ann. 262; Stoddard v. Chambers, 2 How. (U. S.) 284, 11 L. Ed. 269 ; Boring's Lessee v. Lem mon, 5 Flan & J. (Md.) 223.
Patents for mines. The fee of all public mineral lands remains in the United States until patent issues therefor ; Richardson v. McNulty, 24 Cal. 339 ; Robertson v. Smith, 1 Mont. 410 ; Copp's Mining Law 37. The locator possesses only the right to purchase until the payment of the purchase money and the issuance of a receipt by the regis ter and receiver of the local land office ; Hamilton v. Min. Co., 33 Fed. 562.
The method of procedure for the applica tion for patent ids provided for in U. S. R. S. § 2325. It requires that the applicant shall file under oath in the proper land office an application showing a compliance with the above-mentioned statute, together with a plat and field notes made by or under the direction of a United States surveyor gener al, and shall post a copy of the plat, togeth er with a notice of the application, on the land, and then file an affidavit of the posting of such notice and copy in the land office. The act also requires that the register of the land office shall post said notice in his office for sixty days, and shall publish it for the same period in a newspaper nearest to the claim. If at the expiration of the said sixty days no adverse claim shall have been filed with the register and receiver of the local land office, the applicant shall be entitled to a patent upon the payment of $5.00 per acre for a lode location, and $2.50 per acre for a placer location, and after the expiration of said sixty days third persons cannot be heard to make objection to the issuance of the patent ; see Lee v. Stahl, 9 Colo. 208, 11 Pac. 77; Eureka Consol. Min. Co. v. Min. Co., 4 Sawy. 302, Fed. Cas. No. 4,548 ; Golden Fleece Gold & Silver Min. Co. v. Min. Co., 12 Nev. 320. A non-resident's application may be by his agent ; Act of Jan. 22, 1880.