Land Office

A government bureau established in 1812, originally connected with the treasury, l)ut since 1849 forming a division of the Department of the Interior. The commissioner of the general land office performs, under direction of the Secretary of the Interior, all executive duties appertaining to the surveying and sales of the public lands of the United States, or in any wise respecting such public lands, and also such as relate to private grants of land, and the issuing of patents for all land under the authority of the government; R. S. U. S. S8 446-461; he has absolute jurisdiction of any particular grant of public land; Catholic Bishop of Nesqually v. Gibbon, 158 U. S. 156, 15 Sup. Ct. 779, 39 L. Ed. 931; he has the power to supervise the action of the officers of a local land office and to annul a fraudulent entry, but his action is not conclusive; U. S. v. Steenerson, 50 Fed. 504, 1 C. C. A. 652, 4 D. S. App. 332; and the courts are Cent. R. Co. ▼. Forsythe, 169 TJ. S. 46, 15 Sup. Ct. 1020, 40 L. Ed. 71. The general land office has charge of the record of title to the vast area known as the public domain, and all business pertaining to the survey, disposition, and patenting of the public lands of the United States Is transacted through It or under Its order and supervision, All questions of fact decided by the general land office are binding everywhere, and Injunctions and mandamus proceedings will not He against its oflicers; Litchfield v. The Register, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 675, 19 L. Ed. 681; Gaines v. Thompson, 7 Wall. (U. S.) 347, 19 L. Ed. 62; The Secretary V. Mc Garrahan, 9 Wall. (U. S.) 298, 19 L. Ed. 579; but a court of equity, after the title has passed from the United States, may relieve against mistakes of law in collateral proceedings, but it must be clear that a mistake of law has been committed; Moore v. Robbins, 96 U. S. 535, 24 L. Ed. 848; and if the alleged mistake be a mixed one of law and fact so that the court cannot separate it so as to see clearly where the mistake of law is, the decision is conclusive; Marquez V. Frlshie, 101 U. S. 476, 25 L. Ed. 800. Decisions of the land office upon questions of fact within their Jurisdiction cannot be reviewed in a collateral proceeding; Stoneroad v. Stoneroad, 158 U. S. 240, 15 Sup. Ct. 822, 39 L. Ed. 966. Its construction upon an act of congress and its usage for eighteen years Is entitled to considerable weight; U. S. v. Ry. Co., 148 U. S. 562, 13 Sup. Ct. 724, 37 L. Ed. 560. Its decisions upon questions of fact are conclusive: Catholic Bishop of Nesqually v. Gibbon, 158 U. S. 155, 15 Sup. Ct. 779, 39 L. Ed. 931. Its rules and regulations have the effect and force of law on the due observance of which all citizens have the right to rely; Germania Iron Co. V. U. S., 58 Fed. 334, 7 C. a A. 256, 19 U. S. App. 10. In all matters confided by law to their examination and decision the United States land officers act judicially, and their decisions are as final as those of other courts; State V. Bachelder, 5 Minn. 223 (Gil. 178), 80 Am. Dec. 4i0; and although such action is generally conclusive, the land office, up to the Issuing of the patent in their divestiture of title, caqnot by its subsequent action upon a fictitious claim defeat rights already vested. See Land Patent. In a bill which seeks to show that a decision of the laud department was procured by fraud, it must be shown that some trick or deceit was practised on the officers of the department. Where such a bill attacks such a decision on the ground that the officers of the department have misconstrued and misapplied the law, it must set out the evidence ' and what the department found the facts to sions of law. It is not necessary to give notice of a contest before the land department to the predecessors in title of a claimant; Durango Land & Coal Co. v. Evans, 80 Fed. 425, 25 C. C. A. 523.