The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1880-12-23
PUBLIC LAND PATENTS.
Important Decision by the United States Su.
prcme Court--The Validity Of Patents.
Whether Delivered or Not.

Important Decision by the United States Su.
prcme Court---The Validity Of a Patents.
Whether Delivered or Not.
The supreme court of the United States
on Monday last, rendered the following
important decision, which will be Of inter-
est to tho United States, OK rel Thomas Me-
Bride, plaintiff, in error, va. Carl Schurz,
| secretary of the interior, in error, 10 the su-
preiae court of the district of Columbia.
| this was n suit for n writ of mantlnmus to
| compel the secretary of the interior to de-
liver to the plaintiff in error, Mcbride, n
patent FOR certain tract of land in tho ter
ritory of Utah, which Ia now embraced
within the limits of the Mormon city Of
GAINESVILLE. Tho land in controversy had
been duly entered by Mcbride under the
homestead laws Of the United States
His entry has been approved by the gener-
alland Office, And patent to him therefor had
been made out, signed, sealed and recorded
and sent to tho local land Office ut Salt Lake
City for delivery. Before such delivery,
however, the commissioner of the general
land Office discovered that the land covered
by the patent to Mcbride was within the cor
porate limits Of tho city OF Gyantsville, and
that municipality asserted title to il under
tho laws of the United States. The COM
missioners thereupon recalled the patent
before il had passed into the possession
Mcbride, investigated the facts OF the case
and decided that tho patent had been i'm
properly issued and should DO cancelled.
Mcbride appealed from tho decision to the
secretary of the interior. The latter sus-
tanned the action Of tho commissioner of the
general land office, and refused to deliver the
patent to the patentee, Mcbride. Mcbride
then brought this suit in tho supreme court
in the District of Columbia for writ Of
mandamus. The writ was denied by that
court on the ground that the secretary of the
interior had II right to order the cancellation
OF patent ut any time before the delivery
to patentee if, in his Judgment, the patent
had been improperly issued. An appeal was
then taken to the supreme court Of the
United States. The main question presented
by the arguments were: first, whether the
court below had jurisdiction to grant writ;
and, second, whetheran actual delivery of a
duly executed patent was necessary in order
to
TEST TITLE
in the patent The court holds, first, that
the court below had jurisdiction; second,
that when patent to any part Of the public
domain is duly made out, signed, sealed,
countersigned and recorded by the proper
officers of tho United States, the title, to
such land passes beyond recall, to tho pat
entee. No matter whether the patent, which
is merely the evidence of such title, is &C.
tually delivered OF not, the formal or COM
plete execution Of the instrument lisa solemn
and public act Of the government of the
United States, and needs no delivery or
further Authorization to make 1t perfect
and valid. The title passes to the gmntor
by tho matter Of record; and the delivery
required in cases Of deeds and private in
dividuals is nofnecessaryto give effect to the
granting clause Of the instrument As soon
rs tho last action in the formal execution Of
patent is performed, the patentee becomes
ownor Of the land, and the United States
has no further power to deal with it-even
though the general land Office may still hold
the undelivered patent. No further authority
to consider the patentee's case remains in
the land ofiice--no right to consider whether
he ought in equity to receive patent or not
There remains only the simple ministerial
duty Of delivering the patent to the owner;
mandamus. When Mcbride shall have OBJ
tanned evidence of his title, IL there be any
reason why. as against the government he
should not have 1t. if II has been issued
without authority of law or by mistake of the
facts, or by fraud Of the grantee, the United
States can, by a bill in chancery. obtain
decree annulling the patent. Similar re-
lief can also DO had by the city Of Grants
vile, through suit in equity. In the mean
time the land belongs TO Mcbride, and he is
entitled to the patent. The Judgment Of
tho supreme court for tho District Of Col
lumbia il reversed and the case remanded,
with instructions to issue writ of manda-
mus.