Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 1).pdf/573



.

Title to the indemnity lands in the grant to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company does not pass from the United States until the selection of such lands by the company with the approval of the secretary of the interior. Until such approval such lands are not subject to taxation. Jackson v. LaMoure Co., 238.

.

As against all the world, except the United States, plaintiff had perfect title to said land, with good authority to sell and convey the same, and the question of forfeiture, by reason of the existence of said prior parol contract, under § 2262, Rev. St. U. S., can be raised only by the United States. Such forfeiture may be waived. This court cannot anticipate the action of the federal officers in that respect. Larison v. Wilbur, 284.

.

Where a party locates government scrip upon government land at the proper local land office, and where, at the time, the land so entered was subject to entry with such scrip, and the entry was accepted by the officers of the local land office, and the patent certificate issued to the entryman, such entryman holds the full equitable and beneficial title to such land, but until the patent actually issues the naked legal title remains in the United States. Bowne v. Wolcott, 415.

.

Where, in such case, the grantee of the entryman, prior to the issuance of the patent, again conveys the land by warranty deed, with covenant that he is “well seized in fee” of said land, such covenant of seisin is broken, because the grantor is not seized of the legal title. Id.

.

But such deed dose not convey to the grantee the full equitable and beneficial title to said land; and until some paramount or hostile title is in some manner asserted, or the grantee is in some manner disturbed in his possession, such breach is a mere technical breach, for which the grantee can recover nominal damages only. Id.

.

Municipality retaining fruits of illegal contract not liable on. Bank v. School Tp., 26.