1330 LAND OFFICE. [ART. 54

A patent issued under a presumption that only certain lands are included
in it, is good as to lands properly included. Jarrett v. West, 1 H. & J. 501.
Cf. State v. Reed, 4 H. & McH. 11.

A legal title is acquired by a patent although the certificate of survey
did not lay six months in the land office. Proof that a certificate of
survey was forged. Boreing v. Singery, 4 H. & McH. 403 and note (6).

Where the applicant diea after the return of the certificate and before
the grant, the patent is invalid. Potter v. Purnell, 1 H. & McH. 208.

Caveats.

Nature of a caveat and grounds upon which it may be entered. Cunning-
ham v. Browning, 1 Bl. 299.

What is a sufficient caveat? Letter and verbal notice, held insufficient.
Jay v. Van Bibber, 94 Md. 689.

A caveat will not be dismissed because the caveator fails to show an
interest in the matter iu dispute. Armstrong v. Bittinger, 47 Md. 111; Patter-
son v. Gelston, 23 Md. 446 (overruling on this point, (Sittings v. Moale, 21
Md. 135); Chisholm v. Perry, 4 Md. Ch. 32.

After a patent has been Issued, the authority of the land office is ended,
and no caveat can be filed. Jay v. Van Bibber, 94 Md. 690; Steyer v. Hoye,
12 G. & J. 203; Cunningham v. Browning, 1 Bi. 321.

Fraud.

A patent fraudulently obtained is void, and the estate passes to a second
patentee. Boring v. Lemmon, 5 H. & J. 225.

For patents annulled in equity because obtained fraudulently and contrary
to the rules of the land office, see Smith v. State, 2 H. & McH. 247; Proprie-
tary v. Jenings, 1 H. & McH. 92; Hoye v. Johnston, 2 Gill, 316; Attorney
General v. Suowden, 1 H. & J. 332; Seward v. Hicks, 1 H. & McH. 22. Cf.
Garretson v. Cole, 1 H. & J. 370, and Cook v. Carroll, 6 Md. 104; Railroads.
Hoye, 2 Bl. 261, note (6). See also, Singery v. Attorney General, 2 H. & J.
487; Norwood v. Attorney General, 2 H. & McH. 201; Smith v. State use of
Yates, 2 H. & McH. 244.

An equitable title to vacant lands, will prevail over a legal title obtained
by fraud. Hoye v. Johnston, 2 Gill, 292.

The proprietary only can complain of a fraud practiced on him. Wilson v.
Inloes, 6 Gill, 121.

Generally.

The proceedings of the commissioner may be reviewed or controlled by
the courts. The pendency of proceedings to obtain a patent, does not oust
the Jurisdiction of equity, though such Jurisdiction will not ordinarily be
exercised. Goodsell v. Lawson, 42 Md. 370. See also, West v. Jarrett, 1
H. & J. 538; Ringgold v. Malott, 1 H. & J. 316.

Where two certificates of survey and grants bear the same date, he who
got the earlier warrant, prevails, although the other party's grant was
actually issued first. Earn v. Hughes, 3 H. & J. 210. See also, Attorney
General v. Jarrett, 2 H. & J. 472.

The commissioner's duty under this section where there is no contest, is
ministerial only; contra, if there is a contest. Jay v. Van Bibber, 94 Md. 689.
See also, Cook v. Carroll. 6 Md. 112.

When a patent will be issued. Day v. Day, 22 Md. 538; Chapman v.
Hoskins, 2 Md. Ch. 486; The Railroad v. Hoye. 2 Bl. 263; Jones v. Bradley,
4 Md. Ch. 167; Dorothy v. Hlllert, 9 Md. 573; Ridgely v. Johnson, 1 Bl. 316,
note (f).

A patent which has been illegally vacated in equity, will sustain ejectment.
Beale v. Digges, 1 H. & McH. 26.

The payment of composition money, docs not establish a contract between
the state and the applicant. Effect of such payment. Day v. Day, 22 Md.
538. See also, Attorney General v. Snowden, 1 H. & J. 332; Steuart v.
Donaldson. 5 H. & J. 429.

Public lands can only be disposed of for value with a view to some
public benefit. The land office only conveys title to land. Formerly no
appeal lay from the chancellor as judge of the land office. (See article 5
section 82 and 83); Baltimore v. McKim, 3 Bl. 453.