[fzxdf5]

Again I would like to thank you for the wealth of information you have given me...

Except for the question below, you have greatly helped me in my quest to understand the judicial underpinnings of the inquiries I have made.

I do have a question concerning the first entry in your response (Boesche v.Udall). This describes the rights and duties of the parties involved in the Homestead Act as it pertains to the Mineral Lease portion and it goes to great length to this effect. However, a Mineral Lease is defined by quite different mode of operandi as the rights and actual title in the form of denying a patent after a period of supported “improvement” by changing the landscape (aka. Mining), which overtime may have become more valuable in its mined state will be denied. Where the Homestead Act was purported to allow the “farmer” to become part of the Landed Gentry, thus removing the common man from a state of destitution, as was the intent at the time of inception and implementation of the Act. My question still remains as to subsequent order of precedence the documents have when they purport to the same effect by wording of grant to patent by the same office if they both come to perfection. Are they not the same instrument at perfection? And Why?