The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1895-12-26

Wnllo 5ne uupIcaJe receipt Is simply 4
receipt for moneys paid for said lands
signed by the receiver at the land
office, and does cot in fact pass the
title TO the land in question. He says
there are many, probably 1000 cases, in
the county where the title is based
upon the duplicate receipts received at
land sales and title has passed, many
times under the assumption that the
duplicate receipt shows that the one
entering the lands at the several land
sales has evIdencesof title. But in fact
the said re}sipt is purely receipt for
the r oney, which is evidence of the
purchasers right to demand the patent
therefor, which patent is simply a deed
from the general government and moth
ing more. This patent or deed con
veys the fee in the land sold, and for
ever sets at rest the question of title or
ownership.
In the drawing of abstracts Mr..
Benedict said it had been the practice
of his firm to set forth the duplicate re-
ceipt and if the chain of title is COM
plete, starting with the name Of the
person entering the same at the land
office, it is assumed that his title is
good, and the examination continued
upon that supposition, and is passed
upon as such by legal examiners of
titles. He says, however, that some
times he finds a deed issued by parties
other than the one accredited as haV-
ing entered the same at the land Office,
making q full and complete break in
the title.
Mr.. Tarbell, in speaking upon this
point said: 9 We lot long since had
occasion to examine title where there
was such break. The duplicate re-
ceipt from the receiver was subsequent
II found by the owner, upon the back
of which was an assignment from the
one entering the same to the grantor
or deed next following. This receipt
together with the assignment en-
dorsed, was recorded upon the records
of the county as evidence of the au-
thority to convey The lands therein de-
scribed."
1t is a recognized fact that a con-
tract between parties agreeing to sell
certain lands does not pass the title to
i the lands that the fee in said lands
remains in the party contracting to
convey, until a deed is executed, pass
ing title in pursuance of said contract.
The duplicate receipt would be no bet
ter title than the contract between two
parties.
Abiding to the attorney spoken of in
our article MIR. Benedict says: We
think and have the best of evidence
that the gentleman spoken of as " an
attorney from Washington, has no
designs as a land shark to take any
advantage of any mans title or to dis
possess any one of his title or disturb
him in any manner. His mission here
was simply a matter of business. His
firm had made an examination of rec
ords at Washington and had made an
abstract'of lands in this as we'll as other
counties in this state, as we'll as other
states in the Union, and desired of us
names and postoffice addresses IF the
present ownership of the lands in ques-
ton with agiew to correspondence with
the parties, by themselves or duly au-
thorized agents, looking to the obtain
ing of the patents, providing the par
ties interested should desire the serv-
ices of his firm, which proposes to OBJ
tain the said patents for the parties for
reasonable compensation. This is
the whole thing in nutshell. 1t is a
matter of business, nothing more or
less. Thore is no compulsion about the
matter If parties notified are satisfied
with their title resting upon the dupli-
cate receipt, well and good. If they
desire the firm to procure for them the
patent they will be glad to serve them
for small fee for said services. Sim
ply this and nothing more"