McGarrahan v. Mining Co.

delivered the opinion of the court.. ■

The Pederal question in this case-is, whether the record in the volume kept at the General Land-Office at Washington for the recording of patents of the United States issued upon California confirmed Mexican grants, relied upon by McGarrahan as evidence of his title, proves a conveyance by the United States of the land in controversy to Vicente P. Gomez, his grantor. In his behalf, it is contended that the record is itself the grant; or; if not, that it proves‘the issue-to Gomez of a patent which does grant' the legal title to the' property described.

The record called for by the act of Congress is made by copying the patent to be issued into the book kept for that purpose. The effect of the record, therefore, is- to show that an instrument such, as is there copied has actually been prepared for issue from the General Land-Office. If the instrument as recorded is sufficient on its face to pass the' title, it is to be presumed that the grant has actiially been made;' but if it is not sufficient, no such presumption arises. In short, the record, for the purposes of evidence, stands in the same position and has the same effect as the instrument of which it purports to be a copy. The same defences can be made, against the record as could be made against the instrument recorded. The public records of the executive departments of the government are not, like those kept pursuant to ordinary registration laws, intended for notice, but for preservation of the evidence of the transactions of the department.

This brings us to inquire whether this record shows upon its. face the execution of a patent sufficient in law to transfer the title of the premises in controversy from the United States.

■ By the first section of the “ Act to reorganize the General Land-Office ” ( 5 Stat. 107 ), it was provided that the executive duties -relating “ to private claims of land, and the issuing of patents for all grants of 'land under the authority of the government of the United States, shall be subject to the supervision. and control of the commissioner of the General Land-Office, under the direction of the President of the United States; ” and by the fourth section, “ that there shall be appointed by .the President, by and with the consent of the Senate, a recorder of the General Land-Office, whose duty it shall be, in pursuance of instructions from the commissioner, to certify and affix the seal of the General Land-Office to all patents for public lands, and he shall attend to the correct engrossing and recording and transmission of such patents. He shall prepare alphabetical indexes of the names of patentees, and of persons entitled to -patents. . . .” By the sixth section, it was further provided 'that “ it shall be lawful fori the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint a secretary, . . . whose duty it shall be, under the direction of the President, to sign, in his name and for him, all patents for lands sold or granted under the authority of the . United States.” By the second section of the act of Match 3, 1841 (id. 416), the .duty of countersigning patents was transferred from the commissioner of the General Land-Office to the recorder. Thus it appears that a patent for lands must be\signed in the name of the.President, either by himself or- by his duly appointed secretary,’ sealed with the seal of the General Land-Office, and countersigned by the i’ecorder. Until all these things have been done, the United States has not

But if either óf the requisites to the due execution of a patent may.be considered as directory, the countersigning by tbe recorder should not be permitted to occupy that position. The President may sign by his secretary, but the recorder must sigh himself. He countersigns, that is to say, signs opposite to and after the President, by way of authentication. Being specially charged with the duty of attending to the issue of patents, it is peculiarly appropriate that his attestation should be the last act to be performed in the perfection of the instrument, and that he should do it personally.

The record in this case shows an instrument in the form of a patent, signed in the name of the President, and sealed. The place for the signature of the acting recorder is left blank. The name of the President is signed by his secretary. The claim which is made, that Stoddard, the secretary, also countersigned as acting recorder, is not sustained by the evidence. His signature appears only as secretary, and there is nothing whatever to indicate that he attempted to act as recorder. Besides, the law provides ( 5 Stat. 111 , sect. 8), “ that whenever the office of i-ecorder shall become vacant, or in case of the sickness or-absence of the recorder, the duties of his office shall be performed • ad interim by the principal clerk on private land claims.” It certainly is not to be presumed that the same person will hold

The case is, therefore, one in which the record shows upon its face an instrument prepared for a patent but not countersigned by the recorder. If a patent thus defectively executed had itself been introduced in evidence, it would not have shown a grant actually perfected. But it is said that the record of the paper is evidence of thre fact that the recorder recognized its completeness, and is equivalent to its countersignature.' The law is^not satisfied with the simple recognition of the validity of a patent by an officer of the government. To be valid, - a patent must be actually executed. Before it can operate as a grant, the last formalities of the law prescribed for its execution must be complied with. No provision is made for an equivalent of these formalities. Even an actual delivery of the patent by the recorder in person would not supply the place of his countersignature, any more than the delivery of a paper by a' private person without being signed would make it his deed. But the record of a patent would not be necessarily as much a recognition of its validity as a personal delivery by the recorder, because he only attends to. the recording, and is not required to do it in person. The only way in which he can lawfully and effectually recognize the validity of a patent is by personally countersigning it.

Again, it is said that.the act of March 3, 1843 ( 5 Stat. 627 ), remedies the defect, because it provides “ that literal .exemplifications of any such records which may have been or may be granted in virtue of the provisions of the seventh section of the act, . . . entitled ‘ An Act to reorganize the General Land-Office,’ shall be • deemed and held to be of the same validity in all proceedings, whether at law or in equity, wherein such exemplifications are adduced in evidence, as if the names of the officers signing and countersigning the same had been fully inserted in such record.” This act does not, however, dispensa with the signing and countersigning. The record, to prove a valid patent, must still show that these provisions of the law were complied with. The

The failure to record tbe patent does not defeat tbe grant. It only takes from tbe party one of tbe means of making'his proof. If be can produce tbe patent itself, and that is executed with all tbe formalities required by tbe law, be can still maintain bis rights under it. He is not, therefore, necessarily deprived of bis title because of a defective record. He is in no worse condition with tbe signatures omitted than be would have been if tbe description of bis land had been erroneously ' copied, or other mistakes bad been made which rendered the record useless for tbe purposes of evidence. A perfect record of a perfect patent proves tbe grant; but a perfect record of an imperfect patent, or an imperfect record of a perfect patent, has no such effect. In such a case, if a perfect patent has in fact issued, it must be proved in some other way than by tbe record. It is undoubtedly true, that, when a right to a patent is complete and tbe last formalities of tbe law in respect to its execution and issue have been complied with by tbe officers of tbe government charged with that duty, the record will be treated as presumptive evidence of :its delivery to and acceptance by tbe grantee. But until tbe patent is complete, it cannot properly be recorded, and consequently an incomplete record raises no such presumption.

Again, it is said that the record of an instrument which the law requires to be recorded is prima fade evidence of tbe validity of tbe instrument. That is undoubtedly true, if tbe instrument recorded is apparently valid. Tbe presumption arising from tbe record is, that whatever appears.to have been done, actually was done. If the record shows a perfect instrument, tbe presumption is in favor of its validity; but if it shows an imperfect instrument, a corresponding presumption follows. Here tbe instrument recorded appears to have been incomplete, and consequently it must be presumed to be invalid. This pre

We are of tbe opinion tbat, because tbis record does not show; a patent countersigned by the recorder, it is n<" „ sufficient to prove title in tbe party under whom McGarraKm claims. Tbis makes it unnecessary to consider any of I be other questions which have been argued; and tbe judgmr .¿t is

Affirmed.

Mr. Justice Field and Mr. Justice Hablan took no part in tbe decision of tbis cause.