/begin part two/

[Confirmatory Deed - Definition)
“A type of deed, which is used to correct certain defects in record title. It is important to know that the purpose of a confirmatory deed is not to give or create a new title but simply to ‘perfect the evidence of a title created long before’. ‘A deed stating that it is given to replace a certain deed of the same tenor is merely confirmatory, and does not pass a title to a part of land which one of the grantors has acquired after the execution of the lost deed and before the execution of the confirmatory one’.”

“Confirmatory deeds may be used to correct the deeds to the present titleholders as well as prior defects in record title.” See Bon v. Graves, 104 N.E. 2d 1023 (1914), which held that a ‘confirmatory deed, properly sealed and declaring that an earlier deed between the same parties was also sealed, obviated the defect in the title arising from lack of seal on the earlier deed.’
“When a confirmatory deed is used to correct a title defect in the deed to the original grantee, who had already conveyed the property to third parties, the confirmatory deed should run to the original grantee ‘and to those persons claiming by, through or under him by instruments of record’. It should be dated ‘as of’ the date of the original conveyance’, contain a reference to the deed being confirmed and a statement that it is given to confirm the earlier deed.” [end supra Old Republic]

“The doctrine of relation gives effect to an act done at one time as if it had been done at another. It is a legal fiction adopted by courts solely for purposes of justice, — to avoid denial or loss of right; but not to impose burdens. Its application depends on some antecedent right.” McCurdy v. United States, 264 U.S. 484 (1924). (See “Doctrine of Relation” at Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition)[QC]

“As between the parties, and for the advancement of justice, a deed may be deemed to relate back to the date that the grantor agreed to sell and the grantee agreed to purchase the premises.” 23 Am. Jur. 2D Deeds § 331. [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.” Beard v. Federy, 70 U.S. 478, 3 Wall, 478, 18 L.Ed.88. (1865).[QC]

“[The patent]…[A]s it was intended it should be, an instrument of quiet and security to its possessor.” Beard v. Federy, 70 U.S. 478, 3 Wall, 478, 18 L.Ed.88. (1865). [QC]

“A patent operates as a deed of the government. As a deed, its operation is that of a quitclaim” “It passes only the title the government has ... [O]n the date of the patent.” 63A Am. Jur. 2D Public Lands 77, at 575 (1984). North Star Terminal and Stevedore v. Alaska Railroad Corp. (7/30/93), 857 P 2d 335. (Alaska 1993).[QC]

“As we have noted in connection with a patent by the United States, the patent's effect is the same as though the United States had executed a quitclaim deed.” City of Anchorage v. Nesbett, 530 P.2d 1324, 1329 (Alaska 1975) (quoting and relying on Wilson Cypress Co. v. del Pozo y Marcos, 236 U.S. 635, 647-48 (1915).[QC]

“A patent is intended to quiet title to, and secure the enjoyment of, the land for the patentees and their successors…. Thus, as a quitclaim deed, a land patent conveys whatever interest the government has in the soil and the land.” Keag Family Limited Partnership v. State Board of Tax Commissioners; Cause No. 02T10-9906-TA-145. (Not published, September 2001).[QC]

“[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]

"Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States… and [Congress] [D]eclares the patent the superior and conclusive evidence of legal title." Langdon v. Sherwood, 124 U.S. 74 (1888). [QC]

“A patent certificate, or patent issued, or confirmation made to an original grantee or his legal representatives…embraces representatives of such grantee by contract, as well as by operation of law.” Hogan v. Page, 69 US 605, 171 Ed. 854. [QC]

“[N]othing but a patent passes a perfect and consummate title;” Wilcox v. Jackson, 38 U.S. 498 (1839). [QC]

“Without doubt the patents passed the legal title;” Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. McComas, 250 U.S. 387 (1919). [QC]

“Since an estate in fee simple implies absolute sovereignty over the land, the power of alienation is necessarily and inseparably incidental thereto, and an unlimited condition in restraint of alienation attached to such an estate is void.” Loventhal v Home Ins. Co. 112 Ala 108, 20 So 419; Allen v Craft, 109 Ind 476, 9 NE 919; Moore v McKinley, 246 Iowa 734, 69 NW2d 73; Coleman v Shoemaker, 147 Kan 689, 78 P2d 905; Vaughan v Compton, 361 Mo 467, 235 SW2d 328; Hughes v Millers' Mut. F. Ins. Co. 147 Tenn 164, 246 SW 23, 28 ALR 797; Wickouski v Swift, 203 Va 467, 124 SE2d 892; White v White, 108 W Va 128, 150 SE 531, 66 ALR 518; Hays v Walnut Creek Oil Co. 75 W Va 263, 83 SE 900. quote at 23 Am. Jur. 2D b, Fee Simple or Fee Simple Absolute, 1, General § 10.[QC]

“[P]assing whatever interest the United States has in the premises and thereby settling any question of sovereign ownership….” Pueblo of Santa Ana v. Baca (CA10 NM) 844 F2d 708; Whaley v. Wotring (Fla App D1) 225 So 2d 177; Dugas v. Powell, 228 La 748, 84 So 2d 177. [quote at 28 Am. Jur. 2D, F. 2 § 49].[QC]

“Patents are issued only by sovereign powers…” Leading Fighter v. County of Gregory, 230 n.w. 2d 114, 116 (1975) [QC]

“In this country sovereignty resides in the people… The people…established a national government, with sovereign powers…” Juilliard v. Greenman, 110 U.S. 421 (1884)[QC]

"Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of the government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts." Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (1886).[QC]

“[T]he right to make binding obligations is a competence attaching to sovereignty. In the United States, sovereignty resides in the people….” Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 471; Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 Dall. 54, 93; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 404, 405; Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370. Quoted in Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330 (1935)[QC]

“The sovereign is merely sovereign by his very existence... The rule in America is that the American people are the sovereigns.” Kemper vs. State, 138 S. W. 1025, p 1043 (1911)

“A deed by which one gives lands to another and his heirs, if properly executed and delivered, is good even though it is without premises, habendum, reddendum, warranty, testimonium, and date. Sterling v. Park, 129 Ga 309, 58 SE 828.” quote at 23 Am. Jur. 2D Deeds § 18, and “If an intention to pass the title is disclosed, the court will give effect to such intention notwithstanding inaccuracy of expression or inaptness of the words used.” 23 Am. Jur. 2D Deeds § 19.[QC]

“A patent to land, issued by the United States under authority of law, is the highest evidence of title, something upon which its holder can rely for peace and security in his possession. It is conclusive evidence of title against the United States and all the world...” 2 The American Law of Mining, § 1.29 at 357. Nichols v. Rysavy, (S.D. 1985) 610 F. Supp. 1245.[QC]

/End part two/