Daily capital journal. (Salem, Oregon) 1903-1919, 1911-10-09

1t was determined that a receivers
certificate issued for mining lands,
Afforded adequate evidence and was
sufficient to support an action of
electment, Mr.. Justice Wolverton re-
marking: THE rule is that when the
contract Of purchase is completed by
payment of the purchase money and
the issuance of the patent certificate
by the authorized agent of the gov
ernment, the purchaser ACQUIRES a
vested right in the land of which he
cannot be subsequently deprived. II
he has complied with the law prior
to the entry. 1t then ceases to be a
part of the public domain and Is no
longer subject to the laws governing
the disposition of public lands. =
Such an interest is a legal estate in
lands and can be recovered by an ac-
tion of ejectment."
In that case as "a legal estate in
real property" is made a condition
precedent to the enforcement of a
right to the possession Of the prem
lses, 1t was consonant with the doc
trine announced and necessary to so
construe the provisions of the statute
IL. 0. l.. Sec. 325) as to make a final
receipt evidence Of the transfer of a
legal estate, though no patent to
the land had then been Issued by the
officers of the United States.
The Interpretation thus given is
not forced for though 1t is generally
asserted that legal title to real
property can be transferred only by
the execution Of sealed instrument
or by some other mode of convey
ance duly evidenced by writing, the
rule is settled in this state that an
adverse possession of land for the
period prescribed by the statute Gre
ates such a legal estate as will
support an action Of ejectment. Joy
v Stump IA Ore. 361; BarrelI v. Title
Guarantee Co. 27 Ore. II; Pearson v.
Dryden 2S Ore. $50; Neal v. Davis SO
I0re. 423.
In Pierce V. Frace 2 Wash 81, 1t
was ruled that the holder of a final
Freceipt for the entry of public lands
which certificate was in force and un-
cancelled, could maintain an action
'of eJectment to protect hiS possess
sion, but that until the issuance of a
patent for the real property. the COM
missioner Of the general land oflce
might suspend the entry and order a
resexamination at whieh II Ii ap-
peared that : the claimant had not
complied with the requirements of
the law, the entry could be cancelled.
In Hays v. Parker 2 Wash, 7. 1893,
In an action Of ejectment where the
plaintiff alleged title to the demanded
premises by virtue OF a certificate of
purchase Issued to him by a receiver
OF public money OF the United States,
1t was held that the defendant might
properly plead. by way of induce
ment, a certain state of facts BY rea-
son whereof the commissioner OF the
general land office caused such certi-
ficate to be cancelled; that, striking
such matter from the answer, and re-
fusing to permit testimony tending to
prove the fact as explanatory of the
commissioner action, we're errone-
Gus; and, that in such an action, If
In the course of the trial 1t was made
to appear. to the court that at the
time of the commencement of the ac-
tion, the claims of the respective par
ties to the land in dispute were being
waged In the department of the inter-
ior of the United States, and were not
fully determined by the executive
branch of the government. it was not
proper for the court to aid either