The action of the land department under the act of Congress, and the issuance of the patent, is conclusive on the defendant in this action. (Weaver v. Fairchild , 50 Cal. 360; French v. Fyan, 3 Otto, 169; Miller v. Dale , 44 Cal. 562; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72; Hosmer v. Wallace , 47 Cal. 461; Shipley v. Cowen, 1 Otto, 330-340; Moore v. Robbins , 6 id. 530.)
Ever since the decision of the Supreme Court, in Doll v. Meador , 16 Cal. 295, it has been settled law in this State, that if a patent be void on its face, it may be assailed at any time, and in all cases, for it is itself record evidence of the matter which renders it a nullity. If it be issued in the absence of legislation directinga disposition of the property described, or by an officer who is not invested with the power to sign the same, or for an estate prohibited, its validity may be controverted in any action, either directly or collaterally; but if the authority to issue the patent depends upon the existence of particular facts in reference to the condition, or location of the property, or the performance of certain antecedent acts, and officers have been appointed for the ascertainment of these matters in advance, who have passed upon them, and given their judgment, then the patent, though the judgment of the officers be in fact erroneous, cannot be attacked collaterally by parties showing title subsequently derived from the same source.
OPINION Subsequently, on petition for rehearing, the following order was made by the Court in Bank.
The Court:
The rehearing is denied. The decision comes within the rule laid down in McLaughlin v. Powell , 50 Cal. 64.