[QC] below means that the quote has been verified (and usually corrected) at the law library or online at Lois Law, or both. We have discovered severe mis-quotes in many land patent case cites and discovered a few new cites not in general circulation.

“Transcripts of the records in the district land offices, when made and duly certified to by the Secretary of the Interior or such officers as he may designate for individuals, shall be admitted as evidence in all courts of the United States and the Territories thereof, and before all officials authorized to receive evidence, with the same force and effect as the original records.” 43 U.S.C. 83. [QC]

“[T]hat the courts will not interfere by mandamus or injunction… [A]ffirmed and applied to registers and receivers of land offices.” Litchfield v. Register and Receiver, 76 U.S. 575 (1869) [QC]

RCW 5.44.040 Certified copies of public records as evidence
“Copies of all records and documents on record or on file in the offices of the various departments of the United States and of this state or any other state or territory of the United States, when duly certified by the respective officers having by law the custody thereof, under their respective seals where such officers have official seals, shall be admitted in evidence in the courts of this state.” [QC]

“[T]he purchaser shall acquire absolute title by the purchase, and be entitled to a patent from the United States, on payment of the office fees and sum of money…” Thirty-Seventh Congress, Session II. Cu. 75 Section 2 (1862). [Homestead Act][QC]

Absolute Title: “As applied to title to land, an exclusive title, or at least a title which excludes all others not compatible with it. An absolute title to land cannot exist at the same time in different persons or in different governments.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition.

"[N]o patent shall ever issue for any land located therewith, [but]… [b]y due proof that the same was executed by the warrantee in good faith and for a valuable consideration.” Hussman v. Durham, 165 U.S. 144 (1897).[QC]

“A patent of the United States…[A]s a deed its operation is that of a quitclaim or rather of a conveyance of such interest as the United States possessed in the land…[T]his record, [the patent] so long as it remains unvacated, is conclusive.” Beard v. Federy, 70 U.S. 478, 3 Wall, 478, 18 L.Ed.88. (1865).[QC]

“The people of the state, in their right of sovereignty, are declared to posses the ultimate property in and to all lands within the jurisdiction of the state.” Art. II, § 3; and,
“All lands within the state are declared to be allodial, and feudal tenures, with all their incidents, are prohibited…” Art. V, § 23. The only Congressionally ratified Constitution of the State of Washington, 1878, located at the Washington state archives or the national archives at Washington D.C.[QC]

“Except in one or two states, property in the various American jurisdictions, by virtue of state constitutional provisions, organic territorial acts incorporated into the legal systems of states subsequently organized, statutes, and decisions of the courts, is determined to be held allodially, in absolute and direct dominion, subject only to escheat in the event of failure of successors in ownership. Feudal tenures do not and cannot exist. As the Supreme Court has stated, the holding of real property by the owner in fee simple in this country is from the state as chief lord or lord paramount.” 28 Am. Jur. 2D Estates, I § 4. See Miller v. Miller, 91 Kan 1, 136 P 953, referring to the fact that tenures in Kansas are allodial.[QC]

“[W]ithout condition, belonging to the owner, and alienable by him, transmittable to his heirs, absolutely and simply, is an absolute estate in perpetuity and the largest possible estate a man can have, being in fact allodial in its nature.” Stanton v. Sullivan, 63 RI. 216 696 (1839).[QC]

"Even allodial titles, which are the only kind existing in the United States, begin with a grant from the sovereign state.” Marnerakis v. Lichten, No. 0102403C (November 17, 2003) Massachusetts Superior Court.[QC]

From Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition.[QC]
Absolute Estate: Common Law Classification: “An absolute estate is a full and complete estate, or an estate in lands not subject to be defeated upon any condition.”
Allodial: “Free. Not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal.”
Allodium: “Land held absolutely in one’s own right, and not of any lord or superior; land not subject to feudal duties or burdens. An estate held by absolute ownership, without recognizing any superior to whom any duty is due on account thereof.”

"[N]o patent shall ever issue for any land located therewith…[b]y due proof that the same was executed by the warrantee in good faith and for a valuable consideration.” Hussman v. Durham, 165 U.S. 144 (1897).[QC]

“[S]uch an agreement is of no greater force as an estoppel than the exception in the patent.…[T]he patent passes the title and is not open to collateral attack.” Burke v. Southern Pacific R. R. Co., 234 U.S. 669 (1914). [QC]

“[T]he principles of right and justice, upon which the doctrine of estoppel in pais rest, are applicable to municipal corporations”, “The municipality is estopped both on the contract and on the ground of equitable estoppel…So held”. Beadles v. Smyser, 209 US 393 (1908).[QC]

“Estoppels which run with the land and work thereon are not mere conclusions; they pass estates and constitute titles, and are muniments of title, assuring it to the purchaser. The estoppel which inures in favor of a grantee of land operates in favor of a purchaser from him; where a grantor is estopped by his deed to set up title against his grantee, he is likewise estopped to set it up against the assigns of such grantee. [and]
All persons claiming through the parties estopped are equally bound by the estoppel. An estoppel which work on an interest in land runs with the land into whosever hands the land comes, and privies who are bound by such estoppel include privies in blood and estate. However, an estoppel by deed is operative only between parties to the deed and their privies; strangers to the deed are not bound by, nor can they invoke, the estoppel.” 28 Am. Jur. 2D Sec. Estoppel by Deed or Bond A § 8. [QC]

“[i]t may be stated as a general principle that no estoppel arises from either making or accepting a quitclaim deed, except as to any right, title, or interest the grantor may have had or claimed at the time of the conveyance. Such generalization is in full accord with the basic theory that a mere quitclaim is created where a deed is only a conveyance of the interest or title of the grantor in and to the property described, rather than of the property itself, and that a quitclaim passes all the right, title, and interest which a grantor has at the time of making the deed which is capable of being transferred by deed, unless a contrary intent appears, and nothing more.” 28 Am. Jur. 2D Estoppel by Deed or Bond, Sec. A § 8. [QC]

“Title was in the United States on the date as of which the assessment was made, and did not pass until the execution and delivery of the deeds.” McCurdy v. United States, 264 U.S. 484 (1924). [emphasis added][QC]

“In order to give any effect to the deed… [i]t must have been delivered at some time.” Murphy v. Hanright, 238 Mass. 200, 130 N.E. 204 (1921). [QC]

“First, the Grantor must possess a present intent to pass title to the grantee with the delivery of the deed,” Murphy v. Smith, 291 Mass. 93, 195 N.E. 912 (1935). “In addition, the Grantee must demonstrate a concomitant intention to accept the deed, usually by some affirmative act,” Jucho v. Toton, 338 Mass. 309, 155 N.E.2d 162 (1959).

“Secondly, its been held that the effective date of the deed is the date of delivery,” Federal Trust Co. v. Bristol County St. Ry., 222 Mass. 35, 109 N.E. 880 (1915). “Conversely, the date of execution is unimportant.” Harrison v. Trustees of Phillips Academy, 12 Mass. 456 (1815).

“[W]hile it is true that in Beard v. Federy, supra, Mr. Justice Field calls such a patent a quitclaim, we think it rather should be described as a confirmation in a strict sense.” Boquillas Land & Cattle Co. v. Curtis, 213 U.S. 339 (1909).[QC] (Note: This is why we used a confirmatory instrument, to confirm our claim to the patent.)

/End part one/