and concluding that “where a mining patent has issued, the patent-holder is granted both the surface and mineral rights ...”). Accordingly, the Hansards own both the surface and the subsurface rights of their mining claims (at least where those claims overlap with the land granted to Arvilla McLean ), and the conflicting portions of the McLeans’ patent are void. Mantle v. Noyes, 5 Mont. 274, 291, 5 P. 856, 862 (1885) (“If the government issues a patent for lands that have been previously sold or reserved from sale, the patent is so far void.”); Noyes v. Mantle, 127 U.S. 348, 354, 8 S. Ct. 1132, 1135 (1888) (“A patent of the government cannot, any more than a deed of an individual, transfer what the grantor does not possess.”); Brown v. Buddy, 9 P.2d 326, 332 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 1932) (<HOLDING>); cf. Silver Bow Mining & Milling, 5 Mont. at
holding a nonparty to a patent infringement suit who funded an unsuccessful challenge to a patent could not file a subsequent lawsuit again challenging the patent recognizing general proposition that if land is artificially submerged for the statutory period necessary to change ownership of the land title to the submerged land is passed to the state in trust for the public holding that recitals in land patent were affirmative evidence that patentee paid requisite price for land holding that a cause of action for damages to property resulting from a permanent nuisance accrues to the owner of the land at the time the injury begins to affect the land and mere transfer of the land by deed does not transfer the claim for damages holding that the srha homesteaders patent could not convey title to the portion of the land that overlapped an earlier located mining claim