730 FEDERAL REPORTER. �parties asserting interests in lands acquired since the acquisition of the country cou]d defiy and oontrovert this record, and compel the patentee, in every suit for his land, to establish the validity of his claim, his right to its confirmation, and the correetness of the action of the tribunals and offlcers of the United Statea in the location of the same, the patent would fail to le, as it was in- tended it should 6e, an instrument of quiet and seourity to its possessor. The patentee would flnd his title recognized in one suit and rejected in anotlier, and if his title were maintained, he would find his land located in as many different places as the varying prejudices, interests, or notions of justice of witnesses and jurymen might suggest. Every fact upon which the decree arid patent rest would be open to contestation. The intruder, resting solely upon his possession, might insist that the original claim was invalid, or was not properly located, and therefore 7ie ootud not he disturbed by the patentee. No construction which will lead to such resulta can be given to tho flfteenth section. The term Hhird p&rsons," as there used, does not embrace all persans other than the United States and the claimants, but only those who hold su- perior titles^ such as will enable them to resist suacessjully any action of the government in disposing of the property." �In Teschemachery. Thompson, 18 Cal. 26, the supreme court of Cal- ifornia, by Chief Justice Field, says : �" This instrument (the patent) is not only the deed of the United States, but it is a solemn record of the government of its action and judgment with respect to the title of the claimant existing at the date of the cession. By it the sovereign power, which alone could determine the matter, declares that the previous grant was genuine; that the claim under it was valid, and en- titled to recognition and confirmation by the law of nations and the stipula- tions of the treaty ; and that the grant was located, or might have been located, by the former government, and is correctly located by the new government so as to embrace the premises as they are surveyed and described. While this declaration rejnains of record, the government itself cannot question its verity, nor can parties claiming through the government by title subsequjint.
- * !" But as the record of the government of the existence and validity
of the grant, it establishes the title of the patentees from the date of the grant." �In this case that would be from 1846. And again : �"The 'third persons' against whose interest the action of the govornment and patent are not conclusive, under the flfteenth section of the act of March, 3, 1851, are those whose title acarued before the duty of the government and its rights under the treaty attached." Id. 27. �This view was established in Leese v. Clarh, 20 Cal. 412, 420, 423, and repeated in numerous other cases. See Bissell v. Henshaw, 1 Sawy. 566, and cases cited; and S. C. 18 Wall. 268. �In Carpentier v. Montgomery, 13 Wall. 495, the court says that the provision of the fifteenth section of the act of congress cited "was intended to save the rights of third persons not parties to the ��� �
