Land Patent Cites

[suijuris]

I am starting a thread for land patent cites... please post only cites here.

Sui Juris

[suijuris]

When two patents interfere in part, and before possession is taken under the elder patent, the junior patentee enters on the land within the interference with an intention to take possession, he shall be considered to be in possession to the extent of his claim. Ellicott v Pearl, 35 US 412, 9 L Ed 475.





The act of recording a patent and a deed from the patentee has been held to be an act of ouster as against anyone else claiming the land. Walker v Easterling, 215 Miss 429, 61 So 2d 163, 39 ALR2d 348.





A contract to cause a conveyance of land to be made to the purchaser on payment of the purchase money and the issuance of a patent by the government to a railroad company is not within a statute providing for title by adverse possession by one entering under claim of right founded on a written instrument as being a conveyance of the land in question; and payment of the purchase price will not carry the adverse possession back to the time of entry. Central P. R. Co. v Tarpey, 51 Utah 107, 168 P 554, 1 ALR 1319.





If a patent for public land, after the transfer by the patentee of his right thereto, issues to the heirs of the transferor, they cannot successfully claim adverse possession under color of title. Cagle v Sabine Valley Timber & Lumber Co., 109 Tex 178, 202 SW 942, 6 ALR 1426.







§ 164 Patent; conveyance of or rights in public land [3 Am Jur 2d ADVERSE POSSESSION]

Whether a patent conveys a valid title or not, it divests the title of the United States, so that the statute of limitations begins to run in favor of the patentee or grantees of the patentee, they being in possession under claim and color of title; and whether an adverse possession under a claim of title is under a good or a bad, a legal or an equitable, title is immaterial insofar as it relates to the rights of all except the government. Color of title for purposes of adverse possession may be predicated on a patent, as between individuals, where the patent is void, or on invalid or imperfect instruments of conveyance of public lands after patent has issued. Thus, a receipt or a certificate of purchase sufficient on its face to convey the full equitable title to the entry person has been held to be color of title, even though the land was not subject to entry. The same has been held true of a deed from a person who was entitled to a patent; on confirmation by a board of commissioners; or on a warrant and survey, whether a patent has been subsequently granted or not. Confirmation of a Spanish land grant has also been held to be color of title. A wholly unauthorized grant of public land, however, that shows its invalidity on its face, has been held to be insufficient as the basis of a prescriptive title.



The general rule that title by adverse possession cannot be acquired against the nation or a state precludes a junior patentee from going behind the elder patent, or the elder patentee's right to a patent, for the purpose of giving color to possession by the junior patentee prior thereto, since the statute of limitations begins to run only on issuance of a patent. A junior patentee may go behind his own patent, however, and also behind the patent of the elder patentee, for the purpose of giving color to possession from, or subsequently to the granting of, the elder patent.





In a trespass to try title action brought by plaintiff seeking to recover a tract of land, the presumption of a grant doctrine would be applied to eliminate a gap in title from 1845, the date the first owner received a patent from the sovereign, to 1878, when a second party deeded the land to a third party, where, inter alia, there was no suggestion that a claim had ever been asserted by any purported heir or grantee of the first owner, and there was a series of sales and conveyances of the land in the plaintiff's chain of title which evidenced an assertion of ownership; a lost grant or conveyance would be presumed as a matter of law, notwithstanding the rule that such presumption is usually one of fact, where the deeds were ancient and the evidence was undisputed. Howland v Hough (Tex) 570 SW2d 876.







§ 345 --Public lands [23 Am Jur 2d DEEDS]

Although executed and delivered before location of the land, a deed transferring the rights of a holder of a land certificate operates to effect a conveyance of the land itself when located by the transferee, who is thereupon entitled to have the patent issued to him, and if the patent should issue to the transferor or his heirs, they have no right thereto, for by operation of the doctrine of estoppel the title inures to the benefit of the transferee. A quitclaim deed, however, has been held not to have the effect of passing title to land for which the releasor had merely filed an application to purchase from the state.







§ 1090 Real property actions [32A Am Jur 2d FEDERAL COURTS]

Where a complaint shows only that it involves a right to land granted under the laws or treaties of the United States, the case is not within federal question jurisdiction. It is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction by merely alleging that ownership or possession of land is claimed under a United States patent, since once a patent is issued, the incidents of ownership are, for the most part, matters of local property law to be vindicated in a local court. If the rule were otherwise, every suit to establish title to land in the states later admitted to the Union would arise under federal law, since all titles in such states are traceable to federal law. Consequently, the fact that land is held by title derived from the Federal Government has been held not to be a basis of federal question jurisdiction of a trespass, ejectment, or quiet-title suit concerning the land.



The situation is different where the outcome of the suit depends on the construction of federal law. Federal question jurisdiction exists where federal law controls the outcome of a real-property action, such as a possessory action seeking to enforce a federal right to possession governed wholly by federal law, or a suit whose outcome depends on the interpretation of the federal public land laws, railroad land grant statutes, reclamation statutes, or homestead laws. Federal question jurisdiction also exists in suits making substantial challenges under the Federal Constitution to state laws or municipal ordinances as to zoning or land use generally.







A covenant to convey land patented to the covenantor by the United States has been held to apply only to a patent from the United States directly. Davenport v Lamb, 80 US 418, 20 L Ed 655.







The jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court extends to a review of the judgment of a state court involving the impairment of a contract granting a ferry right by the state to an individual, but the fact that more land was taken in an eminent domain proceeding for a ferry landing than was necessary does not introduce a question of the impairment of a contract obligation, within the rule which gives the United States Supreme Court jurisdiction to review a decision of a state court involving such a question, notwithstanding the land taken was held under a patent; it rests with the local government to protect its citizens from injustice or oppression of this nature. Mills v St. Clair County, 8 How (US) 569,





In a suit brought by the Federal Government to obtain the cancellation of a patent issued under the homestead laws, where the matter relied upon was that the entryman, at the time of submitting his application, falsely and fraudulently stated under oath that he was not then the proprietor of more than 160 acres of land, whereas in fact he was then the proprietor of 720 acres of land situated in the county where lay the land which was covered by the patent, it has been held that inasmuch as the entryman's title was of public record at the time the affidavit was made, the statute commenced to run at that time, since, said the court, "possession of the means of knowledge is tantamount to knowledge itself," and "one having reasonable opportunity at hand for knowing essential facts will not be heard to assert that they were unknown." United States v Christopher (CA10 Colo) 71 F2d 764, reh den 72 F2d 375.

[suijuris]

Unlike a land patent, which divests the Government of title, Congress under the Mineral Leasing Act has not only reserved to the United States the fee interest in the leased land, but has also subjected the lease to exacting restrictions and continuing supervision by the Secretary. Thus, assignments and subleases must be approved by the Secretary, 30 U. S. C. § 187; he may direct complete suspension of operations on the land, 30 U. S. C. § 209, or require the lessee to operate under a cooperative or unit plan, 30 U. S. C. (Supp. IV, 1963), § 226 (j); and he may prescribe, as he has, rules and regulations governing in minute detail all facets of the working of the land, 30 U. S. C. § 189; 30 CFR, pt. 221. In short, a mineral lease does not give the lessee anything approaching the full ownership of a fee patentee, nor does it convey an unencumbered estate in the minerals.*fn7 Since the Secretary's connection with the land continues to subsist, he should have the power, in a proper case, to correct his own errors. BOESCHE v. UDALL (05/27/63)



*fn6 R. S. § 441, 5 U. S. C. § 485, charges the Secretary "with the supervision of public business relating to . . . public lands, including mines." He is directed by R. S. § 453, 43 U. S. C. § 2, to "perform all executive duties . . . in anywise respecting . . . public lands [of the United States]," and R. S. § 2478, 43 U. S. C. § 1201, authorizes him "to enforce and carry into execution, by appropriate regulations, every part of the provisions of . . . [the Title dealing with public lands] not otherwise specially provided for."



...land patents once delivered and accepted could be canceled only in judicial proceedings (e. g., Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72; Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530) BOESCHE v. UDALL (05/27/63)



A patent is the highest evidence of title, and is conclusive as against the Government, and all claiming under junior patents or titles until it is set aside or annulled by some judicial tribunal in a direct proceeding for that purpose. Moore v. Robins, 96 U.S. 533.



With the patent passes away all authority or control of the executive department over the land, and over the title which it has conveyed. Noble v. Union River Logging Ry., 147 U.S. 175; Hardin v. Jordan, 140 U.S. 400.



he sovereign right of taxation belonging to a State is not defeated by the Federal Government patenting land within its territorial jurisdiction to a citizen of the State or of a foreign State. MOORE v. MCGUIRE (03/25/07)



The Government is estopped by its patent and by the leases. Peyton v. Smith, 5 Pet. 483.



It is true the Government sometimes claims immunity from certain species of estoppel, but the rule is well established that this immunity is limited to questions of delay and laches; it does not extend to general considerations of equity. Lowa v. Carr,191 Fed. 257.



This is in accordance with the general rule that possession alone, without title or color of title confers no right beyond the limits of actual possession. See Green v. Liter,8 Cranch, 229, 250; Watkins v. Holman, 16 Pet. 25, 55; Marine Ry. & Coal Co. v. United States, 257 U.S. 47, 65; Humphries v. Huffman, 33 Ohio St. 395, 401; Langdon v. Templeton, 66 Vt. 173, 179; Ryan v. Kilpatrick, 66 Ala. 332, 337.



In the case of lands granted under a Land patent, a “connected documentary chain of evidence” is on public record at the Recorder of Deeds for the county in which the land is located. Even the sovereign States themselves do not have the power to overturn Land patents and their effects upon the land, namely, the severance from the interference in them by the administration of government. Gibson v. Chouteau, 13 Wall. 92, 102 (1871).



In order that this distribution of Public Lands could be carried out expeditiously and according to the desire to prevent the current, or any future, administration of government from invading property rights (as had the King), Congress placed the Land patent of the United States in positions above all other conveyances of property, by exempting lands granted under the Land patent from debt incurred prior to the patenting. Ruddy v. Rossi, 248 U.S. 104, 107 (1918).



The effect of this legislation was to give to the patentee, once the patent was perfected via proper procedure, an ability to hold title that is nearly absolute. Steel v. Smelting Co., 106 U.S. 447, 454 (1882).



The validity of the patent could not be attacked except under fraud or clerical error and either of these circumstances has to be proven in a court of law, and the challenge must be brought within six months of the granting of the patent. In fact, in a court of law, the patent is the conclusive proof of legal title. Id. 452



In an action of ejectment (now called eviction or forcible entry and detainer) the right to the possession of the property must be positively proven by a legal title. Fenn v. Home, 21 How. 481, 483 (1858).



Furthermore, the states may not legislate a superior, or even an equal, instrument to the Land patent. Bagnell et. al. v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 436, 451 (1839).



“No more can private property be so taken away by judicial decision and handed over, gratis, to the State. ‘The touchstone of due process is the protection of the individual against arbitrary action of the government.’” Hughes v. Washington, 389 U.S. 290, 294-298 (1967); California ex rel. State Lands Commission v. United States, No. 89 Original (June 18, 1982); Waterman v. Smith, 13 Cal. 373 (1859); Chipley v. Farris, 45 Cal. 527 (1873); Cassidy v. Carr, 48 Cal. 339 (1874); Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co. v. Thompson, 117 Cal. 594, 49 P. 714 (1897), aff’d sub nom. Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming & Milling Co., 180 U.S. 71 (1901); Leese v. Clark, 18 Cal. 535 (1861);



“It [the patent] passes whatever interest the United States may then have possessed in the premises. It operates in consequence as an absolute bar to all claims under the United States having their origin subsequent to the petition.







But the patent has a still further operation and effect. It is not merely a deed of the United States, conveying whatever interest they may have held in the premises at the institution of the proceedings before the Land Commission. It is also a record of the Government, showing its action and judgment with respect to the title of the patentees at the date of the cession…This instrument, as we have stated, is the record of the Government upon the title of the patentee to the land described therein, declaring the validity of that title and that it rightfully attaches to the land. Upon all the matters of fact and law essential to authorize its issuance, it imports absolute verity; and it can only be vacated and set aside by direct proceedings instituted by the Government, or by parties acting in the name and by the authority of the Government. Until thus vacated it is conclusive, not only between the patentee and the Government, but between parties claiming in privity with either by title subsequent.” 18 Cal. 571-572 (citation omitted).



Leo Sheep Co. v. United States, 440 U.S. 668, 687 (1979).



United States v. Title Insurance & Trust Co., 265 U.S. 472 (1924).





“Where questions arise which affect titles to land it is of great importance to the public that when they are once decided they should no longer be considered open. Such decisions become rules of property, and many titles may be injuriously affected by their change. Legislatures may alter or change their laws, without injury, as they affect the future only; but where courts vacillate and overrule their own decisions on the construction of statutes affecting the title to real property, their decisions are retrospective, and may affect titles purchased on the faith of their stability. Doubtful questions on subjects of this nature, when once decided, should be considered no longer doubtful or subject to change.” 265 U.S. at 486-487. (citations omitted)



“[i]f there is any one thing respecting the administration of the public lands which must be considered as settled by repeated adjudications of this court, it is that the decision of the land department upon mere questions of fact is, in the absence of fraud or deceit, conclusive, and such questions cannot thereafter be relitigated in the courts.” Johnson v. Drew, 171 U.S. 93, 99 (1898). More v. Steinbach, 127 U.S. 70, 83 (1888). Stewart v. United States, 316 U.S. 354 (1942). [ambiguity] Heath v. Wallace, 138 U.S. 573 (1891); French v. Fyan, 93 U.S. (3 Otto) 169 (1876); Steel v. St. Louis Smelting & Refining Co., 106 U.S. (16 Otto) 447 (1882);



The patent serves to protect the patentee’s land from all incursions of administrative power. United States v. Stone, 2 Wall. 525, 535 (1864).





patent Unassailable



Sanford v. Sanford, 139 U.S 642, 35 L.Ed. 290







Right to Possess in patentee



Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92, 20 L.Ed. 534







Evidence of Title



U.S. v. Stone, 2 U.S. 525, 17 L.Ed. 768







patent as Legal Title



Minter v. Crommelin, 18 U.S. 87, 15 L.Ed. 279

Johnson v. Christian, 128 U.S. 374, 32 L.Ed. 412

Doe v. Aiken, 31 Fed 393

Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Peters (U.S.) 408, 10 L.Ed. 264







patent as Estopple



Beadle v. Smyser, 209 U.S. 393, 52 L.Ed. 849







Priority in general, for liens see;



26 U.S.C.A. § 6323

S. & S. Gasket Co. Inc. v. U.S., 635 F.2d 568

Mantovani v. Fast Fuel Corp., 494 F. Supp. 72

MDC Leasing Corp. v. New York Property Ins. Underwriting Ass’n., 450 F. Supp. 179, affirmed 603 F. 2d 213

U.S. v. Hage, 417 F. Supp. 74

Matter of Fisher, 7 B.R. 490

26 U.S.C.A. § 7426

Peterson v. U.S., 511 F. Supp. 250

Angelos v. Maryland Cas. Co., 380 A. 2d. 646, 38 Md. App. 265

United States v. Champaign County, Fed. Supp. 474, 1958

Land Patents:

Back in 1983 and 1984, Carol Landi popularized an argument that the land patent was the highest and best form of title and that by updating the patent in your own name, you could defeat any mortgages. This contention violated many principles of real property and when Carol started trying to get patents for most of the land in California brought up into her own name, she went to jail. Others who have raised this crazy argument lost the issue.

1. Landi v. Phelps, 740 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1984)
2. Sui v. Landi, 209 Cal.Rptr. 449 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 1985)
3. Hilgeford v. People's Bank, 607 F.Supp. 536 (N.D.Ind. 1985)
4. Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mtg. Co., 612 F.Supp. 253 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
5. Nixon v. Phillipoff, 615 F.Supp. 890 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
6. Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986)
7. Britt v. Federal Land Bank Ass'n. of St. Louis, 505 N.E.2d 387 (Ill. App. 1987).

Originally Posted by PJT04

Land Patents:

Back in 1983 and 1984, Carol Landi popularized an argument that the land patent was the highest and best form of title and that by updating the patent in your own name, you could defeat any mortgages. This contention violated many principles of real property and when Carol started trying to get patents for most of the land in California brought up into her own name, she went to jail. Others who have raised this crazy argument lost the issue.

1. Landi v. Phelps, 740 F.2d 710 (9th Cir. 1984)
2. Sui v. Landi, 209 Cal.Rptr. 449 (Cal.App. 1 Dist. 1985)
3. Hilgeford v. People's Bank, 607 F.Supp. 536 (N.D.Ind. 1985)
4. Nixon v. Individual Head of St. Joseph Mtg. Co., 612 F.Supp. 253 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
5. Nixon v. Phillipoff, 615 F.Supp. 890 (N.D. Ind. 1985)
6. Wisconsin v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670 (7th Cir. 1986)
7. Britt v. Federal Land Bank Ass'n. of St. Louis, 505 N.E.2d 387 (Ill. App. 1987).

Even the casual reader can see where the actions of Carol Landi were based on greed and obvioulsy defied the concepts of obtaining land patents. However, the wrongs of one person or many people, do not and cannot override the prevailing language of the Law.

Within likelihood, Carol Landi, had no honest right to make a claim on any of the land, as she was neither an heir or an assign; nor was she in adverse possession of those lands.

If people were to simply read the laws, they would find that land can be brought forward into their names under the adverse possession law and in the case of heirs, land can also be brought forward into a current heirs name.

Bringing the patent forward into your name only becomes illegal when it is attempted through fraudulent means.

Jerry.

Originally Posted by jerrypitts

Even the casual reader can see where the actions of Carol Landi were based on greed and obvioulsy defied the concepts of obtaining land patents. However, the wrongs of one person or many people, do not and cannot override the prevailing language of the Law.

Within likelihood, Carol Landi, had no honest right to make a claim on any of the land, as she was neither an heir or an assign; nor was she in adverse possession of those lands.

If people were to simply read the laws, they would find that land can be brought forward into their names under the adverse possession law and in the case of heirs, land can also be brought forward into a current heirs name.

Bringing the patent forward into your name only becomes illegal when it is attempted through fraudulent means.

Jerry.

GOOD POINT JERRY. IT'S GOOD TO KNOW THE WHOLE STORY.

Hi -

I am very well aware that there are many topics which aversely affect our lives; we get ripped off by traffic incidents, the IRS, the Federal Reserve, property taxes, the public schfool system the medical profession and all sorts of other miscreants. We are all over the board and unorganized; we expend and spread out limited energies in so many areas we are pretty much ineffective in all of them; how about finding one area which would solve many if not all of the others, one area where our victory is there for the taking; where the courts and ancient law are totally and unquestionably on our side; believe it or not there is such an area.

But before I explain how land patents fits in I am going to state how and why I contend land patents will solve our major problems; first, what are our major problems? I think it is safe to contend that taxes, all taxes (not just the income tax), and the lousy worthless paper non-money system operated by the privately owned Federal Reserve, pretty much top the list. Also in the forefront is the public schfool system which has been and is being used, generation after generation to dumb us down so that we don’t know any more which way is up.

By the imposition of ever increasing taxation and by the ever decreasing value of our so called “dollars” the system has created an environment where we are so financially strapped that both husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, must work full time jobs just to make ends meet, thus we are forced to neglect our children. For the most part none or very few of us have the time, energy or financial resources to take any serious action to reverse things even when we know things need to be corrected, often because there are so many things wrong that we don’t know where to start.

We are all familiar with the hard work done by those who dedicate their lives full time, such as Larken Rose and Dave Champion, just to name two that are currently under fire as I write this. What can we do to help them - mostly nothing, for all of the reasons I previously stated, besides, my point here is that the stalwart work of these fearless warriors will most probably not do any real long lasting good. If the income tax is repealed the government will just impose some other tax. Because those in government are virtually always on the other side - it seems to me that in order for us to solve any of our serious problems we need to get those in government to work with us - Yea Right! Fat Chance!

Well what do you think would happen if we found an easy fairly quick guaranteed way to stop the government from getting its hands on a huge amount of the money government extorts from us? What if we were able to stop the county tax assessor from collecting property taxes; and stop the local building departments from imposing building permits and collecting all the related fees? What if, at the same time, we showed them a way for them to fund their government expenses from a revenue source that is already in place and functioning which source would not take any more money from us that we are already paying out and would enable us to keep all of the money we are now paying out in property taxes and building permit fees. Is there some possibility that we might motivate the local bureaucrats to work to implement such a plan? Taking away their property tax revenue might just do the trick!!

I feel confident that most of those reading this are all to familiar with the huge obscene edifices being built by the banking “industry”. I am quite sure that many readers of these lists are quite familiar with the fact that the Federal Reserve system is one big rip off, that the Fed takes millions and billions of unearned interest profits for which it provides nothing other than the service of “loaning” us our own money and charging us interest on it.

A study of the Federal Reserve has been a 40 year serious project of mine - in that study I have learned just about everything there is to know about the Fed and, it may seem strange to read and hard to believe, but I have determined that the Fed isn’t entirely 100% bad. The bad parts do not include the purported lending to us of our own money - in fact IMHO that is the very best part - because it enables us to have the financial resources to do all the things we do - the bad is also not that we pay interest on these loans because, after all, no one forces us to take out the loans and we expect to pay interest; so those two items are among the good that I found in the Fed - there is no reason to dispose of or eliminate either of those two; so now the bad part, the very worst part of the Fed is that the Fed collects the interest and distributes it to its private share holders making them all multi billionaires - at our expense - what if we convinced the local bureaucrats that the interest profits of the local banks should be deposited to the treasuries of the states and local political subdivisions of the states?

How do we get them to push this idea? I have been searching for years for reliable information as to how to obtain allodial title to my property, to gain access to the land patent. Over the years I have experienced nothing but frustration after frustration - but during the past few days I have been listening to a series of recorded lectures given by David Wilbur Johnson, a man who has been doing diligent research on land patents for many years and, IMHO, Johnson has put together the key.

For those readers who are not familiar, all private land ownership in the United States originated through some sort of land patent flowing from some treaty - and all land acquired through a land patent is pretty much exempt from taxes and building permit regulations (there may be a few instances where some regulation is appropriate but so little that it can be discounted as near to zero).

In previous writings (some on these threads) I have read that you must be a sovereign (LOL) to hold enforce a land patent and/or that you have to pay the expected taxes in order to effect it - not so according to the messages on these tapes; Johnson claims anyone can enforce a land patent and cites many Supreme Court rulings going against or establishing that even the federal government cannot take land protected by land patents and that no government can tax or regulate such land.

If there was ever something worth listening to - IMHO Johnson's lectures top the list!!

I will sell the URL of the web site where Johnson's lectures to those interested for....

Naw I was just kidding - the recording were previously posted on Suijuris but the poster apparently did not realize the potential - click on or copy and paste the below URL to go listen to the recordings (As soon as you get to the site all you have to do is scroll down a little to the lectures and click on one of the pink play buttons (I also saved them to my hard drive which only takes a few minutes per lecture (depending on your connection speed) so you don’t have to stay on line with your phone line tied up for hours to listen).

In the recordings Johnson states that printed copies are NOT available so you will need to have paper and pencil at hand to jot down the case cites and court rulings which you will need to obtain and enforce your land patent.

http://www.wces.org/html_files/landgrants.htm

Cheers,

Yadu

[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/

/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/

[citizensoldier]

"We are not persuaded by petitioner's argument - based on cases holding that land patents once delivered and accepted could be canceled only in judicial proceedings (e. g., Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72; Moore v. Robbins, 96 U.S. 530 ) - that the administrative cancellation power established by Cameron and the other cases cited is confined to so-called equitable interests, and that a lease which is said to resemble more closely the legal interest conveyed by a land patent, is not subject to such power. We think that no matter how the interest conveyed is denominated the true line of demarcation is whether as a result of the transaction "all authority or control" over the lands has passed from "the Executive Department." Moore v. Robbins, supra, at 533, or whether the Government continues to possess some measure of control over them.

Unlike a land patent, which divests the Government of title, Congress under the Mineral Leasing Act has not only reserved to the United States the fee interest in the leased land, but has also subjected the lease to exacting [373 U.S. 472, 478] restrictions and continuing supervision by the Secretary. Thus, assignments and subleases must be approved by the Secretary, 30 U.S.C. 187; he may direct complete suspension of operations on the land, 30 U.S.C. 209, or require the lessee to operate under a cooperative or unit plan, 30 U.S.C. (Supp. IV, 1963), 226 (j); and he may prescribe, as he has, rules and regulations governing in minute detail all facets of the working of the land, 30 U.S.C. 189; 30 CFR, pt. 221. In short, a mineral lease does not give the lessee anything approaching the full ownership of a fee patentee, nor does it convey an unencumbered estate in the minerals. 7 Since the Secretary's connection with the land continues to subsist, he should have the power, in a proper case, to correct his own errors. "BOESCHE v. UDALL, 373 U.S. 472 (1963), USSC

"'Nor is fraud in the patentee the only ground upon which a bill will be sustained. Patents are sometimes issued unadvisedly or by mistake, where the officer has no authority in law to grant them, or where another party has a higher equity and should have received the patent. In such cases courts of law will pronounce them void. The patent is but evidence of a grant, and the officer who issues it acts ministerially and not judicially. If he issues a patent for land reserved from sale by law, such patent is void for want of authority. But one officer of the land office is not competent to cancel or annul the act of his predecessor. That is a judicial act, and requires the judgment of a court. "MORAN v. HORSKY, 178 U.S. 205 (1900), USSC