iU°I‘BAVEB'-22. rnmou. 31
ent issued??` Butishe did so die, and thereupon here husband and
children"be_came entitled“·in here place to one-half of the donation.
But to what half? andwas there yet any divisionof the donation or
official designation of the half inuring to the settlerand the one to .
=the vvif`e?“ The defendants allegein their pleas that this designation
‘was‘made‘by·theeisnrveyor general on April 8, 1852, when Lownsdale ·
meas his preiaaimy press ¤r~pu$sr~¤risste1emets. era, however
thismay be as a matterof fact, `as a matter or *1aw Ifdonotthink the
"divisioh cduld be "formallyand finally made beforelthe full compliance
‘with#the ;act’°by the settlergand proof thereof*to* the satisfaction of
fthe surveyer-general, as provided insecticn *7 of the iact. '* Until this
was done; the settler had? onlya possessory right in the land—the
right of occupatioii-i1-and·¤there—¢was ·i1o4grant‘>or“donation to- divide
between him and his wife. Hall v. Russell, supra, 503. · And. any
entry ei action   ;the*surveyorr·generai lon- the subject at this time
must in the nature of things havéebeenmerely provisional, and sub-
*ject to correctidnzand modification ·in‘h-is final action upon the case,
when he' (tliQU1Gil5O-dCI1Bld€1"hl11B5H1I3k proofs, and make up and issuethe
*pate1tit· certi’dcate."   " °' ‘ ‘ ‘ ¤ ¤ ” ’ · > r " ‘
  Upon the Iinahproof beingmade, if ‘it~was·satisfactory, the sur-
Wveyorgeneral was authorized to issue afcertincatey under rules and
regulations to be prescribed bythe generalland-chico, “setting forth
the facts in the case, and specifying the land to which the parties are
‘entitled." ‘ It is understood to have been the practice of the land-
ofhce to make thisdivision of the donation upon the issue of the cerQ
tiiicates, and then enter the same on the records or plats ofthe
survey in the omce, or vice versa. ` It is also understood that the com-
missioner of the general iland-office has, in some cases, exercised the
right to alter the division, but probablyionly withthe consent of the
parties interested. And upon the assumption that the commissioner Q
was authorized in all cases to reviewand modify the division made
in the local land-ofdce, the plaintiffs base their claim that there was
no absolute and final division ofthe donation until the patent was
issued. But I. doubt if 4 the commissioner is authorized to set aside
A the division made byY’the surveyorrgeneral and substitute one made
by himself. The authority givenihim by the· act is to issue a patent
according tothe facts stated in the certificate, one of which is, in
case the settler is a married man, the division of the donation be-
tween him and his wife, and the designation of the part inuring to
each. True-, if there is a validobjection to the issue of a patent
upon the case made in the certificatehe may refuseto do so. But I
. I '