Land

[gregtu]

Henry, is this what you're looking for?



The courts held that the operation of a patent as a deed was of the nature of a quitclaim to any interest as the United States possessed in the land; Beard v. Federy, 70 U.S. 478, 3 Wall, 478, 18 L.Ed.88. A patent to land of the United States constituted a full conveyance of title out of the United States; McArthur v. Brue, 67 So. 249, 250, 190 Ala. 563. The issuance of a patent divested the government of all authority and control over the land; Moore v. Robbins, Ill. 96 U.S. 530, 24 L.Ed. 848.





A patent passes to the patentee all interest of the United States, whatever it may have been, in everything connected with the soil and in fact everything embraced within the meaning of the term "land"; Damon v. Hawaii, 194 US 154, 48 L.Ed 916, 24 S.Ct. 617; Energy Transp. Systems, Inc. v. Union P. R. Co., (DC Wyo) 435 F.Supp 313, 60 OGR 427, affd (CA10 Wyo) 606 F2d 934, 65 OGR 576; Moore v. Smaw, 17 Cal 199; Hamilton v. Badgett, 293 Mo 324, 240 SW 214; Crawford Co, V. Hathaway, 67 Nob 325, 93 NW 781 (ovrid on other grounds Wassburger v. Coffee, 180 Neb 149, 141 NW2d 738, adhered to 180 Neb 569, 144 NW2d 209.



A patent to land is the judgment of the Land Department and the conveyance of the title in execution of it to the party adjudged entitled, and, when the land described was in the jurisdiction and subject to the disposition of the Land Department, it is impervious to collateral attack; Neff v. United States, 165 F. 273, 277, 91 C.C.A. 241.



A patent is recognized as the highest evidence of title, conclusive against the government and all claiming under junior patents or treaties until it set aside or annulled by some judicial tribunal; United States v. Mullan, 10 F. 785, 792; Bayner v. Stanly, 13 F. 217, 223.

Not necessarily but thanks for the effort.



What I am trying to do is connect the dots. I tried to get my original Warranty Deed changed to our true names instead of ALL CAPS like it is recorded now.



Original Grantor's $%^#@! attorney (Not the attorney's real name, to borrow Jim's line) doesn't want to allow the original Grantor to sign off on that.



I am wondering how to force his hand on the issue, since the deed, as I am seeing it, is defective, if I want to file a Land Patent. Am I screwed up in the head? or should I just jump on the Land Patent like a duck on a june bug and go for it?



I guess what I am wanting is a cite that says that Land can only be granted (What is done in a deed) to a living, breathing, flesh and blood Man.



That may not exist, but if it does, I'd like to have it. I believe I could at the very least put the attorney who drew it up for us in a thought proviking situation.





HB

[Ice]

Henry... you are spinning your wheels for no reason. That crap isn't important... please give up on the difference in the NAME vs. Name. It will only make a small headache a HUGE MIGRAINE.



All you need to do is look at the Summa Corp. case and you will find, as I have stated before, that IT ISN'T EVEN NECESSARY TO DO ANYTHING IN REGARDS TO A PATENT... as long as you know the patent number you are in good shape.



Now, knowing what case I am referring to... do you think you could find the statement within said case that backs up what I just stated?

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face=tahoma>You can find the case that Ice is talking about here[/color]

[Ice]

It is easier to get the download "Land Patent" from the download section and read the short holdings that are presented from that case. You will find what I am talking about if you do a little bit of critical reading.

Thanks Ice.



When I meet you, I'm gonna skin yore head with my knuckles.



All in Christian love, of course...



I stand corrected and will re-focus.



HB



P.S. I say the above about skinnin' yore head with tongue firmly in cheek. I appreciate the wake up slap and thank you for your input.