Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

the Surveyor General's certificate should show what part of such expenditures is exclusively credited to the. claim for which patent is asked. Nil Desperandum Placer, 10 L. D. 198.

114. Where several mining claims are held in common, the required annual expenditure may be made upon any one of them, but must be for the purpose of developing all the claims. Jackson v. Roby, 109 U. S. 440.

115. A claimant making annual expendi

ture on one of two claims held in common for the benefit of the claim involved is not bound to prove record title to the location on which the work was done, having shown possession. De Noon v. Morrison, 83 Cal. 163; 23 Pac. Rep. 374.

122. Work may be done as a part of a general system upon one of several contiguous locations held in common and applied to all the claims of the group. Mt. Diablo M. & M. Co. v. Callison, 5 Sawy. 439; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 616.

123. An application for a mineral patent will be rejected and canceled upon the filing of a protest against the same, where the applicant failed to comply with the law by filing within the sixty days of publication the certificate of the United States Surveyor General as to statutory expenditure upon the claim. Milton v. Lamb, 22 L. D. 339.

124. Under section 2325, United States Revised Statutes, the certificate of the United States Surveyor General is evidence of the sufficiency of the work performed and im

116. Where several locations are embraced in one application for patent, and an expend-provements made upon a mining claim in iture of $500 is not shown on each claim, it must be made to appear that $500 has been spent for the joint benefit of the various locations. Andromeda Lode, 13 L. D. 146.

117. If expenditure and improvements are made as a part of a general system of development of several neighboring claims not embraced in one application for patent, it must be shown what part of such expenditures or improvements is exclusively credited to the claim applied for. Nil Desperandum Placer,

10 L. D. 198.

118. Where a number of persons not a company locate fifteen hundred feet of mineral land in a body, but divide the same into various claims which they hold in severalty, the sinking of a shaft on one of these claims is not sufficient to perfect title to the whole. Zeckendorf v. Hutchison, 1 New Mex. 476; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 483.

119. Expenditures of $500 must be shown on every location of a group of claims embraced in one application for patent unless that sum is shown to have been expended for the joint development of the several claims of the group. Sweeney v. N. P. R. R. Co., 20 L. D. 394; Ferguson v. Hanson, 21 L. D. 336.

120. Claims must be contiguous in order to have labor done on one inure to the benefit of another. Gird v. California Oil Co., 60 Fed. Rep. 531.

121. Money expended in mining tunnels to develop one or more lodes is considered as work done on those lodes. William S. Merrell, 5 C. L. O. 5.

his State, and in an action to annul a patent it is error to strike out of the answer the allegation that the Surveyor General for Montana took the evidence required by law, and decided that the work and improvements 75; 22 Pac. Rep. 498. equaled $500. United States v. King, 9 Mont.

125. The certificate of the United States Surveyor General that $500 worth of labor has been expended, or improvements made upon the claim by the claimant or his grantors, must be filed before the expiration of the sixty days of publication. But in an explanatory letter of December 16, 1885 (unpublished), the Secretary says: "But in the absence of any protest or evidence showing bad faith on the part of the applicant, I see no reason why generally he should not be permitted to file

the certificate, said certificate

may

be considered as filed nunc pro tunc." Little Pet Lode, 4 L. D. 17.

126. An applicant for patent to a mining claim must within the sixty days of publication of notice of application file a certificate of the United States Surveyor General showing an expenditure of $500 upon the claim, and additional time to make the required expenditure cannot be allowed under the law. White Cloud Copper M. Co., 22 L. D. 252.

127. The certificate of the United States Surveyor General is not binding upon the land office, but where patent has issued thereon it may not be attacked collaterally in an action at law. United States v. Iron S. M. Co., 128 U S. 673. (Affirming 24 Fed. Rep. 568.)

:

128. In a suit to vacate patent on the ground of fraud, the certificate of the United States Surveyor General may not be attacked, and proof of fraud must be clear. United States v. King, 9 Mont. 75; 22 Pac. Rep. 498. 129. The United States Surveyor General may call for additional evidence of $500 expenditure. J. H. Russell Lode, 5 C. L. O. 18.

130. The United States Surveyor General is not required to make a separate certificate as to the $500 improvements on a mining claim. Juniper Mine, 4 C. L. O. 114.

131. The return of the United States Dep uty Mineral Surveyor as to improvements upon a mining claim should state that they were made by the claimant or his grantors. Circular, Nov. 20, 1873, 1 C. L. O. 13.

132. The purchaser of a lode claim from a prior locator is entitled to all the mineral veins and lodes in such claim, and to the benefit of all expenditures made by his grantor in the development thereof; and the right to such benefit is not defeated by a subsequent amended location wherein the purchaser makes use of a discovery of his own within the limits of said purchase and on a junior location embraced for the greater part within the boundaries of said purchase. Tam v. Story, 21 L. D. 440.

133. Five hundred dollars expenditure must be made by the applicants for patent or their grantors in case of a relocated mine. Com'r to William A. Arnold, Jan. 30, 1875, 1 C. L. O. 179.

184. Work done for the benefit of a claim, whether by one holding the legal or equitable title thereto, will operate to preserve the claim from forfeiture. Jupiter M. Co. v. Bodie Cons. M. Co., 7 Sawy. 96; 11 Fed. Rep. 666; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 411.

135. Work done for the development of a mining claim by one holding an equitable interest therein inures to the benefit of the claim. Book v. Justice M. Co., 58 Fed. Rep. 106.

136. Expenditures made by prior claimants, who abandoned the claim, cannot be considered. They must be made by applicant or his grantors. Andrew M. Embry, 7 C. L. O. 5; Copp's Min. Lands, 241 (2d ed.).

137. Mere possession of abandoned mining improvements is not a mining claim. Richards v. Dower, 81 Cal. 44; 22 Pac. Rep. 304. See 151 U. S. 658.

138. Improvements made by trespassers upon a mining claim may not be purchased by a claimant after suit brought to determine the right of possession, and considered as having been made originally by claimant. Little Gunnell M. Co. v. Kimber, 1 Mor. Min. Rep.

536.

139. A relocation of a mining claim is an implied admission of the validity of the original location, and an assertion that the relocator claims a forfeiture by reason of a failure on the part of the original locator to Blain, 4 New Mex. 378; 20 Pac. Rep. 795. make his annual expenditures. Wills v.

140. An unincorporated association of citizens owning separate and distinct interests in a placer mine may unite their means and expend the $500 required by the mining laws at one point and thereafter secure patent. Dudley Chase, 2 C. L. O. 114.

141. When A. and B. claim by location, and A. relocates to avoid relocation by strangers, and afterwards acquires B.'s title, the work done on the relocation may be taken as a resumption of work on the original location if A. elects to claim thereunder. Johnson v. Young, 18 Colo. 625; 34 Pac. Rep. 173.

142. An application to make mineral entry by a successful adverse claimant must be accompanied by an official plat and field notes describing the tract awarded him, and by a certificate of the United States Surveyor General of an expenditure of $500 upon the tract sought to be entered. Albert F. Harsh, 2 L. D. 706.

143. If parties have not been properly notified or have not paid their share of the annual expenditure on a mine, they must file their adverse claims. Grampian Lode, 1 L. D.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Co., 16 Pac. Rep. 565; and citing and approving American Hill Quartz Mine, Sickel's Min. Dec. 377-385; Copp's Min. Lands, 254; Aurora Hill Cons. M. Co. v. 85 M. Co., 12 Sawy. 355; 34 Fed. Rep. 515; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 581; Deno v. Griffin, 20 Nev. 249; 20 Pac. Rep. 308. To same effect see, also, F. P. Harrison, 2 L. D. 767; Alice Placer, 4 L. D. 314; Sweeney v. Wilson, 10 L. D. 157; Ferguson v. Belvoir M. & M. Co., 14 L. D. 43.)

146. Annual expenditure is necessary up to date of entry, and is not excused by court proceedings on an adverse claim. Clark v. American Flag G. M. Co., 7 C. L. O. 5.

147. The failure to perform annual expenditure upon a claim up to date of entry will subject the claim to relocation even after application for patent and publication of notice thereof. Sweeney v. Wilson, 10 L D.

157.

148. Annual expenditure must be made on a mining claim up to the date of entry to prevent the relocation thereof for forfeiture, and the fact that large expenditures have been made will not prevent such relocation, even though the applicant thought he had made entry. Ferguson v. Belvoir M. & M. Co., 14 L. D. 43.

149. The filing of application for a patent to a mining claim does not relieve the claimant from the necessity of performing the usual annual assessment work to prevent his claim from becoming subject to relocation. Com'r to Fletcher Maddox, Jan. 13, 1892.

150. Annual expenditure is not required on placer claims. Com'r to R. B. Patton, April 25, 1874, 1 C. L. O. 18.

151. Annual expenditure must be made upon placer claims as well as upon lode claims. Circular, March 24, 1887, 8 L. D. 505.

152. Assessment work is required on placer claims. St. Louis Sm. Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636; 11 Mor. Min. Rep. 673; Jackson v. Roby, 109 U. S. 440; Carney v. Arizona M. Co., 65 Cal. 40; 2 Pac. Rep. 734..

153. Improvements made before the location of the claim should not be considered as having been made for its development in the absence of a clear showing of such fact. Trickey Placer, 7 L. D. 52.

154. Improvements made on a lode location afterwards relocated by the same party as a placer claim may be considered as done for

the placer claim in an ex parte case. Com'r to Harrison Office, Feb. 24, 1892.

155. The fact that a part of the required $500 expenditure was made on the land before its location as a mining claim, while held under the agricultural law, does not affect the validity of an entry. Clark v. Taylor, 20 L. D. 455.

156. Prospect work done looking for lodes may be considered as done for the development of a placer subsequently located on the same ground. United States v. Iron Silver M. Co., 24 Fed. Rep. 568.

157. Where a mineral entry of a placer claim taken by legal subdivisions has been canceled as to that portion of the claim on which the discovery and improvements are situate, no further time will be allowed within which to make a discovery on every twentyacre tract remaining or to make an expenditure of $500 thereon, as the location of the claim without such discovery was invalid. Departmental decision of May 20, 1896, In re Eliza Sweeney.

158. Proof of $500 expenditure upon a placer claim taken by legal subdivisions may consist of the affidavit of the claimant, supported by the affidavit of one or more disinterested persons. Com'r to A. C. Johnson, Sr., Nov. 20, 1891.

159. "When a party applies for a lode claim and mill site in the same application, the act does not require that five hundred dollars shall have been expended upon the Com'r to Surveyor General of Colorado, March mill site, but upon the lode claim only." 10, 1874, 1 C. L. O. 2.

160. Where a lode claim and a mill site

appurtenant thereto are embraced in one survey and in one application for patent, the survey of the mill site need not be connected with a corner of the public surveys or a United States mineral monument, if connected with the survey of the lode claim, and in such a case it is not incumbent upon the claimant to show an expenditure of $500 upon the mill site, its use or occupancy for mining or milling purposes in connection with the lode claim being sufficient to entitle claimant to ask for a patent therefor. Alta Mill Site, 8 L. D. 195.

161. Where the discovery and improvements are excluded from the entry of a mining claim, the entry will be canceled unless it

inson v. Imperial S. M. Co., 5 Nev. 44; Slavonian M. Co. v. Vacavich, 7 Sawy. 217; 7 Fed. Rep. 331; Mills v. Fletcher, 100 Cal. 143; 34 Pac. Rep. 637; Craig v. Thompson, 10 Colo. 517; 16 Pac. Rep. 24; Erhardt v. Boaro, 2 McCrary, 141; 8 Fed. Rep. 692; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 452; 113 U. S. 527; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 432.

is shown that mineral has been discovered | M. Co., 1 Nev. 215; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 32; Rob and the requisite expenditure made upon claimed ground. A reconveyance by another lode claimant of the patented excluded ground, containing the discovery of the claim applied for, will not be accepted in such a case as reinvesting title to the same in the government for the purpose of patenting it with the claim last entered. Winter Lode, 22 L. D. 362.

170. As between parties, failure to perform annual labor by the original locator 162. Where it appears that the ground on might be excused on the ground of threats which are situate the discovery and improve-made by the other, but the threats must be ments of an entered claim has been patented such as would reasonably have a deterrent as part of another claim, the entryman may effect. Slavonian M. Co. v. Vacavich, 7 Sawy. furnish proof of discovery of a lode outside of 217; 7 Fed. Rep. 331. the patented conflict, and that the requisite expenditure has been made on claimed ground. Spur Lode, 4 L. D. 180.

163. An expenditure of more than $1,500 by the owners of an adjoining mine on the portion of a tunnel running through the premises embraced in an application for patent is an expenditure under the mining law upon the claim applied for. George K. Willard, 4 C. L. O. 67.

164. Relocation of abandoned placer claims is allowed where the local laws require annual expenditure thereon. J. P. Sears, 8 C. L. 0. 152.

165. An expenditure of $500 is required on each separate location of twenty acres or less of placer mines. Placer Claims, 9 C. L. O. 163.

166. Five hundred dollars expenditure is required on each placer claim, not on each location. Smith Bros., 7 C. L. O. 4.

167. One hundred dollars need not be expended annually on every twenty acres of a placer claim; nor need $500 be expended on every twenty acres, nor for the benefit of every twenty acres, in order to secure a patent, where the claim was embraced in one location. Com'r to John Cowell, June 5, 1893,

160. The claim as amended is an entirety, and it is not necessary that the improvements should be upon any particular part thereof. Lincoln Placer, 7 L. D. 81.

169. Where a mining claim is adversely held by a trespasser, the claimant is relieved from the duty of performing assessment work, at least as far as the rights of such trespasser are concerned. Utah M. & Mfg. Co. v. Dickert & Meyers Sulphur Co., 6 Utah, 183; 21 Pac. Rep. 1002; Oreamuno v. Uncle Sam G. & S.

171. The fact that no work is done on a mining claim during the year will not operate as an abandonment where the claim is adversely held by a trespasser. Mills v. Fletcher, 100 Cal. 143; 34 Pac. Rep. 637.

does not forfeit his right thereto, so as to 172. The owner of a placer mining claim render it subject to relocation, by a failure to perform the annual assessment work during a time when adverse possession is held by another, where he commences action for its recovery within the statutory time. Trevaskis v. Peard, 44 Pac. Rep. 246 (Cal.).

173. The amount paid for performance of annual labor is not conclusive of its value, but is properly admissible in evidence. Quimby v. Boyd, 8 Colo. 194; 6 Pac. Rep. 462.

174. "In estimating the amount of work or improvements, the test is the reasonable value thereof." Mattingly v. Lewisohn, 8 Mont. 259; 35 Pac. Rep. 111.

175. Hearings may be had to determine whether the $500 expenditure has been made on a mine for which patent is desired. George K. Willard, 4 C. L. O. 67; Clark v. American Flag G. M. Co., 7 C. L. O. 5.

176. A hearing should be ordered upon a protest of one alleging non-compliance by an entryman with the law relating to discovery, expenditure, and notice of application for patent. Weinstein v. Granite Mountain M. Co., 14 L. D. 68.

177. The location need be marked only once if the locator remains in possession and does the work necessary to maintain his location. Jupiter M. Co. v. Bodie Cons. M. Co., 7 Sawy. 96; 11 Fed. Rep. 666; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 411.

178. Annual expenditure is not required | claims or lodes cannot be credited to any one upon mines within the limits of the Sutro of such claims, as to do so would be to credit Tunnel grant (Nevada). Sutro Tunnel Co., 8 the one "with work done and expenditures C. L. O. 54. made in part for other claims or lodes." Alice Edith Lode, 6 L. D. 711.

179. A party who makes a large expenditure upon a mining claim will not be excused from making the annual expenditure. Com'r to W. S. Merrill, 5 C. L. O. 5.

180. The good judgment of a mining claimant in working his claim by any legitimate means will not be questioned by a court. Stone v. Bumpus, 46 Cal. 218; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 278.

181. It must be clearly shown that the improvements counted as a part of the required expenditure upon a claim were made for the benefit of the claim applied for. John Downs, 7 L. D. 71.

182. A regulation of a mining district requiring more work to be done to hold a claim than is required by the United States law is void. Original M. Co. v. Winthrop M. Co., 60

Cal. 631.

183. State laws or local regulations cannot relieve mine holders from the requirement of the United States laws with regard to annual expenditures for the benefit of claims. Sweet v. Webber, 7 Colo. 443; 4 Pac. Rep. 752; 4 West Coast Rep. 116.

184. Local regulations requiring certain assessment work to be done on each location, held not to mean that it must be done on every two hundred feet of the entire claim held by several persons, but on the whole claim, irrespective of the number of locations

or feet. Leet v. John Dare S. M. Co., 6 Nev. 218; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 487.

185. Courts must construe local mining rules and customs, and require owners of mining ground to develop and work it if consistent with law. King v. Edwards, 1 Mont. 235; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 480.

188. In a suit to determine conflicting mining claims to public land under section 2326, United States Revised Statutes, if there has been no work done by either claimant, plaintiff or defendant, on the premises in controversy, the finding should properly be against both. Jackson v. Roby, 109 U. S. 440.

189. A mining patent proves that the land is mineral; that the location was valid; that $500 had been expended for development, and all other things necessary done. Stark v. Starr, 6 Wall. 418; St. Louis Sm. Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636; 11 Mor. Min. Rep. 673; Last Chance M. Co. v. Tyler M. Co., 15 U. S. App. 456; Eureka Cons. M. Co. v. Richmond M. Co.

(Eureka Case), 4 Sawy. 309; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 578; Silver Bow M. & M. Co. v. Clark, 5 Mont. 378; 5 Pac. Rep. 574; Talbott v. King, 6 Mont. 76; 9 Pac. Rep. 434.

190. Continuous possession and performance of annual assessment work are sufficient to disprove a charge of abandonment. Souter v. Maguire, 78 Cal. 543; 21 Pac. Rep. 183.

191. Where mining property has been developed by the courage and energy and at the expense of defendants until it has become of enormous value, courts will look with disfavor upon the claims of a party thereto who has lain idle while awaiting the results of this development, and will require not only clear proof of fraud, but prompt assertion of such a party's rights. Johnson v. Standard M. Co., 148 U. S. 360.

192. A claim is an entirety, and it need not be shown that improvements are situate upon any particular portion of the claim, where it has been enlarged by amendment of the location. Lincoln Placer, 7 L. D. 81.

193. Assessment work was not done on a claim, though one owner promised to see that it was done. A third person, in collusion with the owner by whose fault abandonment oc

186. When the regulations of a mining locality require that every mining claim shall be worked two days in every ten, held, that the efforts of the owner to procure machinery for working the claim are by fair intend-curred, relocated and applied for patent. The ment to be considered as work done on the claim. Packer v. Heaton, 9 Cal. 568; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 447 (1858); McGarrity v. Byington, 12 Cal. 426 (1859); 2 Mor. Min. Rep. 311.

187. Expenditures and improvements made upon or for the development of several

other owner in the original location adversed the application. Held, that he had no grounds for adversing, but should file a bill in equity against the applicant to have him declared trustee. Doherty v. Morris, 11 Colo. 12; 16 Pac. Rep. 911.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »