LAND OFFICE. 1945

he may order and direct, ordering such surveyor to correct such certificate;
and a corrected certificate shall he returned to the land office within two
months from the date of such order; provided, however, that the commis-
sioner may for good cause shown extend the time for the return of the
corrected certificates.

Land included in a grant but excluded from certificate of survey cannot be taken
up as vacant. A grant cannot be corrected or controlled by certificate of survey.
Method of correcting grant for more or less land than that contained in such certifi-
cate. Tolson v. Lanahan, 2 H. & J. 175. See also Carroll v. Llewellin, 1 H. & McH.
162.

A patent will not be granted under a warrant of re-survey unless the land is con-
tiguous, though survey may be corrected. Wilson v. Markle, 4 Md. Ch. 535; Buck-
ingham v. Dorsey, 1 Md. Ch. 32; Baker v. Naylor, 4 Md. Ch. 543.

If vacant land, not contiguous, is included in certificate of survey, it is not notice
of location of warrant until certificate is returned to land office. Hammond v,
Warfield, 2 H. & J. 151.

Deputy surveyor has no authority to survey lands lying in another county. A
caveat will be sustained on that ground, but if patent has been granted without
fraud, good title passes. Hammond v. Ridgely, 5 H. & J. 245.

When depositions under a warrant of re-survey are evidence in a later suit. To
what matters proof may extend. Caution money. Priority between elder and junior
survey. Steuart v. Mason, 3 H. & J. 507. See also Wilson v. Inloes, 6 Gill, 122.

Parol evidence is not admissible 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 H. & 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 description in certificate of survey, see Wilson v. Inloes, 6
Gill, 121.

As to equitable circumstances preventing relation of grant to certificate of sur-
vey, see Garretson v. Cole, 1 H. & J. 370; Peter v. Mains, 4 H. & McH. 428. Cf. Ring-
gold 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 ejectment case holding that it was necessary to produce 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
assignees. Lloyd v. Tilghman, 1 H. & McH. 85.

Cited but not construed in Cunningham v. Browning, 1 Bl. 312 (see notes to sec
40).

See notes to secs. 38 and 40.

An. Code, sec. 41. 1904, sec. 41. 1888, sec. 38. 1872, ch. 38, sec. 2. 1918, ch. 135.

40. If a certificate of survey shall be returned within the time herein
prescribed and shall be found to be correct, and the whole composition
or purchase money has been paid, and such certificate has lain six months
in the land office and no caveat has been entered thereto within said period
of six months, the same shall not thereafter be permitted to be entered,
and 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 operation of law from the effect of the caveat, 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.