sufficient to sustain the finding that no service was made on plaintiffs or Canfield. The tax deed by reason thereof was void.S One of the contentions made by appellant Is that The North Face Outlet Store the state patent issued to Foster by the state under the provisions of chapter Laws of is regular on its face and cannot be collaterally attacked except on the grounds of fraud or mistake. It is the specific contention of appellant that the officers of the state land department areauthorized by statute to Issue patents for state lands upon the ascertainment of certain facts which such department has been given jurisdiction to Nike Shoes Australia Inquire Into and determine as to the existence of such facts and that in the absence of fraud or mistake the determination so made and patents issued in the name of the government thereunder are conclusive The North Face Outlet as against collateral attack. On the other hand the respondent contends that section c Laws of under and by virtue of which the said patent was issued through which appellant claims title Is unconstitutional and void in that it deprives respondents of their property without due process of law and without notice to them and without affording them an opportunity to be heard for the purpose of contesting and trying out the truthfulness of the facts that would Nike Air Max 90 warrant the land department In forfeiting respondents contract and substituting in lieu thereof a new contract to Foster. The trial court found that respondents were not given any notice of the application for or issuance of said patent or the special North Face Outlet Store contract therein referred to to Foster and that to give such patent effect would authorize property to be taken without due process of law in violation of the provisions of the Constitutions of the United States and the state of South Dakota. It is no doubt the rule that patents issued by the federal and state governments through the land departments under legislative acts have the same force and effect as if they had been directly Issued by the legislative body itself and that In the absence of fraud or mistake the action of the land department becomes conclusive. Smithwick School Dist. v. LincolnSchool DistS. DN. W. ;Board of Education v. MansfieldS. DN. WAm. St. RepBarden v. Railway CoU. SSup. CtL. EdHarrington v. GoldsmithCalPacWorcester v. KittsCal. AppPac The same rule applies to both federal and state patents. Worcester v. Kitts supra; Dreyfus v. BadgerCalPac North Face Outlet Now it appears from the record in this case and Nike Australia it is conceded that respondents did fail to pay Nike Air Max the taxes assessed against said land for the years and and that said land was sold for the tax ofto Foster as purchaser and that no redemption wns made from such sale by respondents and that a tax deed fair on Its face was issued to Foster and on these facts Foster applied to the state land department for a special contract to be issued to him under the provisions of section c Laws of . Foster fully and technically complied on the face of the matter presented with the provisions of this section entitling him to a special contract and pntent in lieu of the original contract held by respondents.If the statute is valid the patent to Foster was valid and conveyed to him complete title as he fully complied with the statute. Foster presented to the land .department everything by way of evidentiary facts required by this statute to entitle him to the special contract In lieu of Oakley Sunglasses the contract held by respondents. The effect of the procedure authorized