The official certificate of any register or receiver of any land office of the United States to any fact or matter on record in his office shall be received and held competent to prove the fact as certified. The certificate of any such register of the entry or purchase of any tract of land within his district shall be taken to be evidence of title in the party who made such entry or purchase, or his heirs and assigns; but a patent for land shall be considered a better legal and paramount title in the patentee, his heirs, or his assigns than such register's certificate of the entry and purchase of the same land.
Source: R.S. p. 309, § 3. G.L. § 1080. G.S. § 1310. R.S. 08: § 2494. C.L. § 6540. CSA: C. 63, § 6. CRS 53: § 52-1-6. C.R.S. 1963: § 52-1-6.
ANNOTATION
The statute was clearly intended to cover only facts and matters affirmatively appearing on record in the land office; and it is too simple a proposition to admit of argument that it does not authorize receiving in evidence a certificate stating that a certain fact or matter does not appear on record. Knoth v. Barclay, 8 Colo. 300, 6 P. 924 (1885).
Land entered as herein prescribed has always been held to be the subject of contract and sale, and the receipt of the money and the issuance of the certificate have universally been held to be such a segregation of the land from the public domain as to entitle the party to his patent, and to warrant legal proceedings for the purposes of procuring it. Godding v. Decker, 3 Colo. App. 198, 32 P. 832 (1893).
A purchase money receipt from land office is prima facie evidence. A receipt for the purchase money of lands issued by the receiver of a land office of the United States is prima facie evidence of title to the lands therein described. Carson v. Cudworth, 26 Colo. App. 131, 140 P. 935 (1914).
A record of a receiver's receipt constitutes recorded title within the meaning of this section. Dallemand v. Mannon, 4 Colo. App. 262, 35 P. 679 (1894).
A receiver's duplicate receipt is by this section made evidence of title in the person making the entry or purchase of the land, and is entitled to be recorded. Dallemand v. Mannon, 4 Colo. App. 262, 35 P. 679 (1894).
It has been held good as against a subsequent patent. A receiver's receipt, regular in all respects, both as to its form and the antecedent acts of entryman leading up to it, has been held to be good as against a subsequent patent issued by the government. Carson v. Cudworth, 26 Colo. App. 131, 140 P. 935 (1914).
A patent is conclusive evidence of compliance with federal statutes. A patent for lands purchased of the United States relates to the entry, and is conclusive evidence of compliance by the entryman with all the requirements of the federal statutes. Carson v. Cudworth, 26 Colo. App. 131, 140 P. 935 (1914).
A purchaser cannot complain that vendor has only a final receipt. That the vendor holds only a final receipt, and not a patent for the land, is not a defect of which the purchaser can complain. Godding v. Decker, 3 Colo. App. 198, 32 P. 832 (1893).