ART. 54] CERTIFICATES OF SURVEY. 1329

between an elder and junior survey. Steuart v. Mason. 3 H. & J. 507. See
also, Wilson v. Inloes, 6 Gill, 122.

Parol evidence is not admissable to prove that land included in a return
of the surveyor, never was surveyed. Hammond v. Norris, 2 H. & J. 130.

For a case holding that a presumption of a grant defeating a second grant,
arises from a certificate of survey and long continued possession, see Carroll

v. Norwood. 5 H. & J. 155. Cf. Mundell v. Clerklee, 3 H. & J. 468. See also,
Cockey v. Smith, 3 H. & J. 20; Hall v. Gough, 1 H. & J. 127; Carroll v.
Norwood. 4 II. & McH. 287; Lloyd v. Gordon. 2 H. & McH 254; Young v.
Hawkins, 1 H. & McH. 148; Casey v. Inloes, 1 Gill, 430.

For requisites of the description in the certificate of survey, see Wilson v.
Inloes, 6 Gill, 121.

As to equitable circumstances preventing the relation of a grant to the
certificate of survey, see Garretson v. Cole, 1 H. & J. 370; Peter v. Mains, 4
H. & McH. 428. Cf. Ringgold v. Malott, 1 H. & J. 317; West v. Hughes, 1
H. & J. 13; Lloyd v. Tilghman, 1 H. & McH. 85; Kelly v. Greenfield, 2 H. &
McH. 121.

For an ejectment case holding that it was necessary to produce the
certificate of survey, as well as the grant, see Henderson v. Parker. 3 H. &
J. 117.

For cases involving the forgery of the certificate of survey, see Boreing v.
Singery, 4 H. & McH. 403, and note (b); Singery v. Attorney General, 2 H.
& J. 487; Boreing v. Singery, 2 H. & J. 455.

When certificates of survey were assigned, it was customary to issue
grants to the assignees. Lloyd v. Tilghman, 1 H. & McH. 85.

Cited but not construed in Cunningham v. Browning, 1 Bl. 312 (see notes
to section 41).

See notes to sections 39 and 41.

1904, art. 54, sec. 41. 1888, art. 54, sec. 38. 1860, art. 54, sec. 31. 1782, ch. 38, sec. 2.
41. If a certificate of survey shall be returned within the time
herein prescribed and shall be found to be correct, and the whole com-
position or purchase money has been paid, and such certificate has laid
six months in the land office and no caveat has been entered thereto,
the person having such certificate returned, his assignees, devisees or
heirs shall be entitled to a patent thereon; or if the certificate is
released by adjudication or by the operation of law from the effect of
the caveat, a patent shall issue thereon as if no caveat had been filed.

Nature and effect of a patent.

A patent simply grants the State's interest in land, and is subject to all
existing rights. Linthicum v. Coan, 64 Md. 452.

What is the legal effect of a patent? Jay v. Van Bibber. 94 Md. 690;
Armstrong v. Bittinger, 47 Md. 108: Brown v. Shilling, 9 Md. 80.

By a patent, the state warrants that the grant contains the number of
acres specified. How a deficiency is made up. Hoffman v. Johnson, 1 Bl.
103. See also, Tolson v. Lanham. 2 H. & J. 175.

A patent passes nothing unless the land described is susceptible of loca-
tion. Description in certificate of survey. Wilson v. Inloes, 6 Gill. 121. See
also. Budd v. Brooke, 3 Gill.198.

A patent, when granted, relates hack to the date of the warrant. The
legislature may direct the commissioner to issue a patent, but can not annul
a patent already issued. Smith v. Devecmon. 30 Md. 481; Owings v. Nor-
wood. 2 H. & J. 90; Chesapeake, etc.. Canal Co. v. B. & O. B. R. Co.. 4 G. &
J. 6; Garretson v. Cole, 2 H. & McH. 459. Cf. Attorney General v. Snow-
den, 1 H. & J. 332; Kelly v. Greenfield. 2 H. & McH. 121.

The patentee of land covered by navigable water, takes subject to the
public rights of fishery and navigation. Hammond v. Tnloes. 4 Md. 173;
Baltimore v. McKim. 3 Bl. 453; Wilson v. Inloes, 11 G. & J. 359; Browne v.
Kennedy, 5 H. & J. 195.
84