SECTION IV THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA A REPUBLIC UNDER GOD LAND PATENTS, EJECTMENT, AND ESTOPPEL l. In case of ejectment, where the question is who has the legal title, the patent of the government is unassailable. Sanford v Sanford, 139 US 642. 2. The transfer of legal title (patent) to public domain gives the transferee the right to possess and enjoy the land transferred. Gibson v Chouteau, 80 US 92. 3. A patent for land is the highest evidence of title and is conclusive as against the government and all claiming under junior patents or titles. United States v Stone, 2 US 525. 4. The presumption being that it (patent) is valid and passes the legal title. Minter v Crommelin, 18 US 87. 5. Estoppel has been sustained as against a municipal corpora- tion (county), Beadle v Smyser, 209 US 393. 6. A court of law will not uphold or enforce an equitable title to land as a defense to an action of ejectment. Johnson v. Christian, 128 US 374, Doe v Aiken, 31 F. 393. 7. When congress has prescribed the conditions upon which portions of the public domain may be alienated (to convey, to transfer), and has provided that upon the fulfillment of the conditions the United States shall issue a patent to the purchaser, then such land is not taxable by a state. Sargent v Herrick & Stevens, 221 US 404, Northern P.R. CO. v Trail County, 115 US 600. 8. The patent alone passes land from the United States to the grantee and nothing passes a perfect title to public lands but a patent. Wilcox v Jackson, 13 Peter (US) 498. 9. Patents and other evidences of title from the United States government are not controlled by state recording laws and shall be effective, as against subsequent purchasers, only from the time of their record in the county. Lomax v. Pickering, 173 US 26. 10. In federal courts the patent is held to be the foundation of title at law. Fenn v Holmes, 21 Howard 481. 11. Congress has the sole power to declare the dignity and effect of titles emanating from the United States and the whole legislation of the government, in reference to the public lands, declare the patent to be the superior and conclusive evidence ofthe legal title. Until it issues, the fee is in the Government, which by the patent passes to the grantee, and he is entitled to enforce the possession in ejectment. Bagnell v Broderick. 13 Peter (US) 450. 12. In ejectment the legal title must prevail, and a patent of the United States to public lands pass that title: it can not be assailed collaterally on the ground that false and perjured testimony was used to secure it. Steel v St. Louis Smelting and Refininq Co., 106 US 417. 13. A patent certificate, or patent issued, or confirmation made to an original grantee or his legal representatives of the grantee or assignee by contract, as well as by law. Hogan v Pace, 69 US 605. 14. In federal courts, the rule that ejectment cannot be main- tained on a mere equitable title is strictly enforced, so that ejectment cannot be maintained on a mere entry made with a register and receiver, but only on the patent, since the certificates of the officers of the land department vest in the locator only equitable title, This rule prevails in the federal courts even when the statute of the state in which the suit is brought provides that a receipt from the local land office is sufficient proof of title to support the action. Langdon v Sherwood, 124 U.S. 74, Carter v Ruddy, 166 US 493. 15. The plaintiff in ejectment must in all cases prove the legal title to the premises in himself, at the time of the demise laid in the declaration, and evidence of an equitable title will not be sufficient for a recovery. The practice of allowing ejectment to be maintained in state courts upon equitable titles cannot effect the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States. Fenn v Holmes, 21 Howard 41. 16. Under USCA Constitution, Article 4, section 3, clause 2, Congress, in exercise of its discretion in disposal of public lands, had power, by this section, to restrict alienation of homestead lands after conveyance by United states in fee simple, by providing no, such lands shall become liable to satisfaction of debts contracted prior to issuance of patent. Ruddy v Rossi, (1918) 248 US 104. 17. Patents are tied to the Bible, in Genesis 47 by way of the word assigned in italicized print. Also note in later verses the beginning of sharecropping, BC 1701. 18. The right to the ownership of property and to contract with respect of its use is unalienable. Golding v Schubac, 93 U.S. 32: Saville v Corless, 46 U.S. 495. 19. Parties in possession of real property have the right to stand on their possessions until compelled to yield to the rule title determined by trial by jury. 47 Am. Jur. 2d 45.20. Giving a note does not constitute payment. Echart v Commis- sioners, I.R.S. 42 F2d 158; 283 U.S. 140. 21. Actual or threatened exercise of power over the property of another is coercion and duress which will render the payment involuntary. Cleveland v Richardson, 132 US 318. 22. Property value means the price the property will command in the market, or its equivalent in lawful money. People v Hines, 89 P. 858. 5 Cal. App. 122 23. Neither a town nor its officers have any right to appropriate or interfere with private property. Mitchell v City of Rockland, 46 Me. 496. 24. A state may provide for the collection of taxes in gold and silver only, State Treasurer v Wright, 28 ILL. 509: Whitaker v Haley, 2 Ore. 128. 25. Taxes lawfully assessed, are collectible by agents in money and notes, cannot be accepted in payment. Town of Frankfort v Waldo, 128 Me. 1. 26. There must be strict compliance with statutory requirements to divest property owners of their property titles for non payment of taxes. McCarthy v Greenlawn Cem., 168 Me. 388 (1962). 27, At common law there was no tax lien. Cassidy v Aroostook, 134 Me. 341 (1936). 28. A tax on real estate to one not the owner is not valid. Barker v Blake, 36 Me. 433 (1853).