![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
7 a new patent should be issued in accordance with said severalty act. And my opinion is, that the cancellation or surrender of the old patent would be a useless, though a harmless, thing. The third question propounded is, as to whether or not it would be proper-- "to turn over the patents issued to the Wisconsin Indians and never delivered, without trying to secure an assignment." And the inquiry is made-- "Will the statement endorsed upon the patent, 'never delivered,' be sufficient?" In the case of the United States v. Schurz (102 U.S. 378) it was held that-- "Title or patent from the United States is [[made?]] by record, and a delivery of the instrument to the patentee is not, as in a conveyance by a private person, [[assumed?]] to pass title." Hence, I am of the opinion that whenever a patent has been duly recorded and regularly and properly issued, in favor of a [[person?]] in [[?]] who is [[?]] of receiving title, the title [[illegible due to paper fold]] neither a failure to find the patentee nor a failure to deliver the patent, can in the [[?]] affect the validity of that title.