Public Lands—Jurisdiction of Land Department — Conclusiveness of Action. —The action of the land department of the United States, 1 within the scope of its authority, is binding and conclusive as to the disposition of public lands within its jurisdiction.

Id.—Neglect to Weigh Evidence — Action of Subordinate Officers — Contest of Homestead by Pre-emptioner — Cross-complaint in Ejectment. — A cross-complaint in an action of ejectment alleging that j the officers of the land department, upon appeal, had neglected to read, examine, or weigh the evidence taken before them upon a contest of the application for a homestead of the plaintiff’s grantor, to whom a patent was issued, and had filed written opinions adverse to the claim of the defendant as a pre-emptioner, which had been compiled and fabricated by clerks and subordinates, presents no facts entitling the defendant to a judgment that the patent be declared void..

Id. —Land within Exterior Boundaries of Floating Mexican Grant — Validity of Homestead Claim. —The fact that the land in contro- \ versy was, at the time of the filing of the application of the plaintiff’s \ grantor for a homestead thereon, within the exterior boundaries of a Mexican grant does not render the homestead claim void, if the grant was a floating one, and the land in controversy was excluded from the final survey.

Id. — Reservation in Case of Floating Grant. —Under a floating Mexican * grant, only the quantity of land actually granted was reserved during the examination as to the validity of the grant, and the remainder was at the disposal of the government as part of the public domain.

Id.—Decision of Land Department upon Contest — Effect of Possession of Pre-emptor upon Homestead Claim. — Where the land de- j partment has jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the persons, its I adjudication upon a contest of the question as to whether the continuous possession of a pre-emption claimant from a date prior to the filing . of a homestead claim by another prevented the acquisition of any homestead claim is final and conclusive. ¡

Id. — Patent for Homestead Claim — Recital — Additional Homestead ' of Discharged Soldier — Burden of Proof. — A recital in a patent to , a homestead claimant that his claim thereto was established “ pursuant ; to the act of Congress approved the twentieth day of May, 1862, to secure homesteads to actual settlers upon the public domain, and the acts supplemental thereto,” is broad enough to include section 2306 of the Revised Statues, allowing additional homesteads to discharged soldiers without actual occupation thereof; but such patent does not cast upon the patentee or his grantee the burden of showing that the homestead was initiated under that section, and was not initiated and acquired under the laws requiring actual settlement and residence.

Id. — Deed of Soldier’s Additional Homestead—Power of Attorney — Subsequent Patent to Grantor—Ejectment — Evidence.—An additional homestead acquired by a soldier under section 2306 of the, Revised Statutes may be alienated prior to the issuance of the patent therefor; and a power of attorney authorizing a conveyance of such homestead, and a conveyance thereof pursuant to the power, executed prior to the issuance of the patent to his grantor, are admissible in evidence to sustain the right of the grantee to sue in ejectment for the land.

Ejectment—Collateral Attack upon Patent —Offer of Evidence — Location of Land within Mexican Grant. — Assuming that a patent may be attacked under the general issue of ownership in an action of ejectment, yet an offer of the defendant to prove that the property in controversy was within the exterior boundaries of a Mexican grant at the time of the presentation of a declaratory statement of homestead claim by the plaintiff’s grantor is too uncertain and indefinite, and is properly rejected, there being no offer to show that the grant was not a floating grant.

Id.—Evidence — Deed — Acknowledgment — Delay of Notarial Certificate. —Where the execution of a deed is proved, and there is no question of actual or constructive notice involved, the deed is valid as between the grantor and grantee, without reference to its acknowledgment; and an objection to its admission in evidence in support of the title of a plaintiff in ejectment, that the notary’s certificate was not made nntil over two years after the acknowledgment of the deed, is properly overruled.

Id.—Proof of Deed—Record — Secondary Evidence.—Under section 1951 of the Code of Civil Procedure as it existed prior to the amendment of March 1, 1889, the admission in evidence of the record of a deed, without proof of the loss of the original or of the inability of the party offering the evidence to produce it, was erroneous.