Summary

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller United States v. Schurz — Opinion of the Court

There remains the duty, simply ministerial, to deliver the patent to the owner,-a duty which, within all the definitions, can be enforced by the writ of mandamus.
It is not always that the ill consequences of a principle should control a court in deciding what the established law on a particular subject is, and in the delicate matter of controlling the action of a high officer of the executive branch of the government, it would certainly not alone be sufficient to justify judicial interposition.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller United States v. Schurz — Opinion of the Court

When their decision of such a question is finally made and recorded in the shape of the patent, how can it be said that the instrument is absolutely void for such errors as these? If a patent should issue for land in the State of Massachusetts, where the government never had any, it would be absolutely void. If it should issue for land once owned by the government, but long before sold and conveyed by patent to another who held possession, it might be held void in a court of law on the production of the senior patent.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Samuel Freeman Miller Samuel Freeman Miller United States v. Schurz — Opinion of the Court

I agree that, when the right to a patent has become complete, the execution and delivery of the patent itself are the mere ministerial acts of the officers charged with that duty; and I further agree that when the right to a patent has been determined, and the patent has actually been signed, sealed, countersigned, and recorded, no actual delivery is necessary to pass the title.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature