Durfee v. Plaisted

Rhodes, J., delivered the opinion of the Court: The plaintiff claims title to the premises under a patent issued by the United States to Frisbie and others, by virtue of the Act of Congress of March 3, 1863, granting the right of pre-emption, etc., to the purchasers of the Suscol rancho. (12 U. S. Stats. 808.) The Act provides that, after the public surveys have been extended over .the rancho, the bona fide purchasers from M. G. Vallejo, or his assigns, may enter the lands which they had purchased and reduced to possession, when the claim of Vallejo to the rancho was rejected by the Supreme Court of the United States; that joint entries may be made by co-terminous purchasers, so as to enable them to adjust their boundaries; that the claims of such purchasers should be presented to the Register and Receiver within a specified time, together with the proof of such purchase, settlement and possession; that the case of each claimant should be “adjudged by the Register and-Receiver,” under instructions from the Commissioner of [83]the General Land Office, and that their adjudication, together with the proof, should be transmitted to the Commissioner for final confirmation. The patent, although not expressly provided for in the Act, issues in pursuance of the entry, as the usual and, perhaps, necessary mode, in the absence of any other provision, for the transmission of the legal title to the purchaser. The patent grants certain tracts of land to the patentees “according to their respective interests therein, as purchasers from Vallejo or his assigns and it was stipulated that the premises in suit were a part of such tracts, and had been conveyed by Vallejo to Frisbie before the claim of Vallejo was rejected. The patent is the record of the Government that the land was subject to entry by the patentees under the Act of Congress, and was entered by them in conformity to law; and is conclusive evidence of the regularity, as well as the validity, of the action of the officers in passing upon and finally confirming their claim as purchasers from Vallejo or his assigns. (Doll v. Meador, 16 Cal. 324; People v. Stratton, 25 Cal. 251; Page v. Hobbs, 27 Cal. 483; Carder v. Baxter, 28 Cal. 100; Hagar v. Lucas, 29 Cal. 312.)

This rule is of course subject to the qualification expressed in Patterson v. Winn (11 Wheat. 380), that, if the patent be void upon its face, or were issued without authority, or were prohibited by law, or if the Government, in whose name the patent issued, had no title, it may be attacked collaterally.

The defendant does not connect himself in any manner with the source of title; and, under the rule stated, he is not permitted to inquire whether Frisbie was a purchaser from Vallejo or his assigns; whether, at the time of the rejection of the claim of Vallejo, Frisbie filled the requirements of the Act, so as to be entitled to present his claim and have it passed upon by the Register and Receiver, and the Commissioner of the General Land Office; or, generally, whether those officers correctly confirmed his claim.