Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

proceedings to obtain a patent therefor are the same as when the claim covers but one location. St. Louis Sm. Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636; 11 Mor. Min. Rep. 673.

362. There is no limitation to the number of locations one person may make or hold, nor to the number which may be embraced in one patent. Poire v. Wells, 6 Colo. 406.

363. "While the law prescribes a limitation to the size of a single location, there is no limitation to the number of claims one person may hold by purchase, or that may be enclosed in a single patent, and as I understand, that may be included in a single survey, showing only the exterior boundaries, and omitting all interior lines of the several smaller claims." Carson City G. & S. M. Co. v. North Star M. Co., 73 Fed. Rep. 597. (Citing Polk's Lessee v. Wendall, 9 Cranch, 87; St. Louis Sm. Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636; 11 Mor. Min. Rep. 673.)

364. One survey, application, entry and patent may embrace several contiguous claims held in common. St. Louis Sm. Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636; 11 Mor. Min. Rep. 673; Good Return M. Co., 4 L. D. 221; Circular, Dec. 14, 1885, 4 L. D. 374; S. F. Mackie, 5 L. D. 199.

365. "The miner having located his claim, is to be treated as an express licensee of the United States and independent of a purchase from the government of his mining claim, he has, upon compliance with the terms of the act a right to appropriate the minerals therein contained. A title in fee by patent is offered him, which he may at his pleasure accept or reject." There is no time prescribed within which he shall apply for a patent. Wolfley v. Lebanon M. Co., 4 Colo. 112; 13 Mor. Min. Rep. 282; Chapman v. Toy Long, 4 Sawy. 28; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 497; Lebanon M. Co. v. Cons. Republican Mtn. M. Co., 6 Colo. 381; Gold Hill Quartz M. Co. v. Ish, 5 Oreg. 104; 11 Mor. Min. Rep. 635.

366. The fact that a part of a mining location on which were situate the improvements was, after location, patented to an agricultural claimant, does not render the location invalid, at least as to a subsequent locator not claiming under the agricultural patentee. Richards v. Wolfling, 98 Cal. 195; 32 Pac. Rep. 971.

367. Work done outside of the claim upon another patented claim, if for the benefit of

the unpatented claim, may be considered as having been done upon it. Hall v. Kearney, 18 Colo. 505; 33 Pac. Rep. 373.

368. A deed of mineral entries Nos. 1 and 2, lots 3 and 4, patented as the A. and B. claims, may, if such appears to have been the intent of the parties, be held to convey all of grantor's title to the A. and B. claims, even though the patent only covered parts thereof. Crescent M. Co. v. Wasatch M. Co., 19 Pac. Rep. 198; Jackson v. Dines, 13 Colo. 90; 21 Pac. Rep. 918.

369. A person who makes improvements upon public land, knowing that he has no title, and that the land is open to exploration and sale for its minerals, and makes no effort

to secure the title to it as such, under the

laws of Congress, or a right of possession

under the local customs and rules of miners, has no claim to compensation for his improvements as an adverse holder in good faith, when such sale is made to another, and the

title is passed to him by a patent of the United States. Sparks v. Pierce, 115 U. S. 408.

370. It is too late after patent has issued to make objection that publication of notice was not in compliance with the act of July 26, 1866. Prince of Wales Lode, 2 C. L. O. 2.

371. A valid location must be so made

that upon compliance with the law a patent might be issued, embracing the surface evidences of the location, excepting, perhaps, one or more boundary stakes. Armstrong v. Lower, 6 Colo. 393; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 631. (Affirmed, 6 Colo. 581; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 458.).

372. A party not an adverse claimant may appear any time before the issue of patent and show from the record that the mining applicant has no right to the premises. Tiernan v. Salt Lake M. Co., 1 C. L. O. 25.

373. A clerical error in the register's final certificate in a mineral entry in an owner's name does not affect the validity of a patent issued under the correct name. Prince of Wales Lode, 2 C. L. O. 2.

374. Dower interest in a mining claim, which attached while the claim was held under possessory title, may not be asserted against a patentee who was the assignee of the dower claimant's husband. Black v. Elkhorn M. Co., 52 Fed. Rep. 259.

375. An equitable title must yield to that which the patent conveys. United States v. Southern Colorado Co., 18 Fed. Rep. 273.

376. A lien given for work done on "mines" does not cover work in mining on a patented agricultural entry. Morse v. DeAdro, 40 Pac. Rep. 1019.

377. A mineral patent will issue only to a qualified applicant for patent or to one claiming under him by transfer before entry. J. C. Baker Fraction Placer, 23 L. D. 112.

ADVERSE CLAIMS.

I. THE STATUTES.

II. REGULATIONS.

III. DECISIONS.

1. Verification.

2. Subject of.

3. Filing.

4. What Must be Shown. 5. Effect of.

6. Suit.

7. Judgment.

8. General.

I. THE STATUTES.

Where an adverse claim is filed during the period of publication, it shall be upon oath of the person or persons making the same, and shall show the nature, boundaries, and extent of such adverse claim, and all proceedings, except the publication of notice and making and filing of the affidavit thereof, shall be stayed until the controversy shall have been settled or decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, or the adverse claim waived. It shall be the duty of the adverse claimant, within thirty days after filing his claim, to commence proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, to determine the question of the right of possession, and prosecute the same with reasonable diligence to final judgment; and a failure so to do shall be a waiver of his adverse claim. After such judgment shall have been rendered, the party entitled to the possession of the claim, or any portion thereof, may, without giving further notice, file a certified copy of the judgmentroll with the register of the land-office, together with the certificate of the surveyorgeneral that the requisite amount of labor has been expended or improvements made thereon, and the description required in other cases, and shall pay to the receiver five dollars per acre for his claim, together with the proper fees, whereupon the whole proceedings and the judgment-roll shall be certified by the register to the Commissioner of the General Land Office, and a patent shall issue thereon for the claim, or such portion thereof as the applicant shall appear, from the decision of the court, to rightly possess. If it appears from the decision of the court that several parties are entitled to separate and

different portions of the claim, each party may pay for his portion of the claim with the proper fees, and file the certificate and description by the surveyor-general, whereupon the register shall certify the proceedings and judgment-roll to the Commissioner of the and patents shall issue to the several parties General Land Office, as in the preceding case, according to their respective rights. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the alienation of a title conveyed by a patent for a mining-claim to any person whatever. (17 Stat. 93; 19 Stat. 52; sec. 2326, U. S. Rev. Stat.)

Act of March 3, 1881.

AN ACT to amend section twenty-three hundred and twenty-six of the Revised Statutes relating to suits at law affecting the title to mining-claims.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That if, in any action brought pursuant to section twentythree hundred and twenty-six of the Revised Statutes, title to the ground in controversy shall not be established by either party, the jury shall so find, and judgment shall be entered according to the verdict. In such case costs shall not be allowed to either party, and the claimant shall not proceed in the landoffice or be entitled to a patent for the ground in controversy until he shall have perfected his title.

Approved March 3, 1881. (21 Stat. 505.)

Act of April 26, 1882.

AN ACT to amend section twenty-three hundred and twenty-six of the Revised Statutes, in regard to mineral lands, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled: That the adverse claim required by section twenty-three hundred and twenty-six of the Revised Statutes may be verified by the oath of any duly authorized agent or attorney-in-fact of the adverse claimant cognizant of the facts stated: and the adverse claimant, if residing or at the time being beyond the limits of the district wherein the claim is situated, may make oath to the adverse claim before the clerk of any court of record of the United States or the State or Territory where the adverse claimant may then be, or before any notary public of such State or Territory. Approved April 26, 1882. (22 Stat. 49.)

II. REGULATIONS.

81. Section 2326, and the act of April 26, 1882, provide for adverse claims, fix the time within which they shall be filed to have legal effect, and prescribe the manner of their adjustment, etc.

82. An adverse mining claim must be filed with the register and receiver of the Land Office where the application for patent was filed, or with the register and receiver of the district in which the land is situated at the

time of filing the adverse claim. It must be on the oath of the adverse claimant, or it may be verified by the oath of any duly authorized agent or attorney-in-fact of the adverse claimant, cognizant of the facts stated.

83. Where an agent or attorney-in-fact verifies the adverse claim, he must distinctly swear that he is such agent or attorney, and accompany his affidavit by proof thereof.

84. The agent or attorney-in-fact must make the affidavit in verification of the adverse claim within the land district where the claim is situated.

85. The adverse notice must fully set forth the nature and extent of the interference or conflict; whether the adverse party claims as a purchaser for valuable consideration or as a locator; if the former, a certified copy of the original location, the original conveyance, a duly certified copy thereof, or an abstract of title from the office of the proper recorder should be furnished, or if the transaction was a merely verbal one he will narrate the circumstances attending the purchase, the date thereof, and the amount paid, which facts should be supported by the affidavit of one or more witnesses, if any were present at the time, and if he claims as a locator he must file a duly certified copy of the location from the office of the proper recorder.

66

86. In order that the 'boundaries" and "extent" of the claim may be shown, it will be incumbent upon the adverse claimant to file a plat showing his entire claim, its relative situation or position with the one against which he claims, and the extent of the con flict. This plat must be made from an actual survey by a United States deputy surveyor, who will officially certify thereon to its correctness; and in addition there must be attached to such plat of survey a certificate or sworn statement by the surveyor as to the approximate value of the labor performed or improvements made upon the claim by the adverse party or his predecessors in interest, and the plat must indicate the position of any shafts, tunnels, or other improvements, if any such exist, upon the claim of the party opposing the application, and by which party said improvements were made: Provided, however, That, if the application for patent describes the claim by legal subdivisions, the adverse claimant, if also claiming by legal subdivisions, may describe his adverse claim in the same manner without further survey or plat.

87. Upon the foregoing being filed within the sixty days as aforesaid, the register, or in his absence the receiver, will give notice in writing to both parties to the contest that such adverse claim has been filed, informing them that the party who filed the adverse claim will be required within thirty days from the date of such filing to commence proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction to determine the question of right of possession, and to prosecute the same with reasonable diligence to final judgment, and that, should such adverse claimant fail to do so, his adverse claim will be considered waived, and

the application for patent be allowed to proceed upon its merits.

88. When an adverse claim is filed as aforesaid, the register or receiver will indorse upon the same the precise date of filing, and preserve a record of the date of notifications issued thereon; and thereafter all proceedings on the application for patent will be suspended, with the exception of the completion of the publication and posting of notices and plat, and the filing of the necessary proof thereof, until the controversy shall have been adjudicated in court, or the adverse claim waived or withdrawn.

89. Where an adverse claim has been filed and suit thereon commenced within the statutory period, and final judgment determining the right of possession rendered in favor of the applicant, it will not be sufficient for him to file with the register a certificate of the clerk of the court, setting forth the facts as to such judgment, but he must, before he is allowed to make entry, file a certified copy of the judgment, together with the other evidence required by section 2326, Revised Statutes.

90. Where such suit has been dismissed, a certificate of the clerk of the court to that effect, or a certified copy of the order of dismissal, will be sufficient.

91. In no case will a relinquishment of the ground in controversy, or other proof, filed with the register or receiver, be accepted in lieu of the evidence required.

92. Where an adverse claim has been filed, but no suit commenced against the applicant for patent within the statutory period, a certificate to that effect by the clerk of the State court having jurisdiction in the case, and also by the clerk of the circuit court of the United States for the district in which the claim is situated, will be required.

104. The fees payable to the register and receiver for filing and acting upon applications for mineral-land patents are five dollars to each officer, to be paid by the applicant for patent at the time of filing, and the like sum of five dollars is payable to each officer by an adverse claimant at the time of filing his adverse claim. (Sec. 2238, R. S., paragraph 9.)

105. All fees or charges under this law may be paid in United States currency.

III. DECISIONS.

1. Verification.

1. An adverse must be upon oath of the adverse claimant. Samuel McMaster, 2 L. D. 706. 2. An adverse by several parties need be verified by one only. Jenny Lind M. Co. v. Eureka M. Co., Sickel's Min. Dec. 223–231.

3. An adverse sworn to before an officer out

side of the land district, but whose jurisdiction extends into the land district, and who acted within his jurisdiction, held good. Corning

T. M. & R. Co. v. Pell, Sickel's Min. Dec. 307; | is made in their own names by the other co3 C. L. O. 195.

4. A commissioner of deeds for Nevada, residing in California, is not an officer before whom an adverse claimant to a mine in Nevada may make oath. (Rendered prior to act of 1882.) Dardanelles M. Co. v. California M. Co., Sickel's Min. Dec. 326; Corning M. & Red. Co. v. Pell, 3 C. L. O. 195.

5. An agent who files an adverse claim must show his authority and swear to the adverse claim within the land district wherein the claim is situated. Circular of May 9, 1882,

1 L. D. 685.

6. An adverse by corporation may be veri

fied under oath of its president, other proper officer or duly authorized agent. Hawley Cons. M. Co. v. Memnon M. Co., Sickel's Min. Dec. 235; Equator M. & Sm. Co. v. Marshall S. M. Co., 1 C. L. O. 132.

7. Where the attorney of an incorporated company signs the adverse claim in the usual form as "general manager and attorney in fact," and verifies the same before a notary public, and swears that the company is duly incorporated, further evidence of incorporation and power to hold real estate is not required. Philadelphia M. Co. v. Finley, 10 C. L O. 340.

8. Failure of an agent who files an adverse claim, sworn to as agent, and on which suit is duly instituted, to furnish proof of agency at time of filing the adverse claim, will not warrant the allowance of entry upon the application against which the adverse claim is filed, and an entry so allowed will be canceled. Brown v. Bond, 11 L. D. 150.

2. Subject of.

9. An agricultural claim may be the subject of an adverse claim. Anderson v. Amador & Sacramento Canal Co., 10 L. D. 572. Contra, Com'r to Rapid City Office, April 13, 1889; Com'r to Lake City Office, Dec. 1, 1880.

10. Delinquent co-tenants must protect their rights by adverse. Grampian Lode, 1 L. D. 544; Lucy B. Hussey Lode, 5 L. D. 93; Monitor Lode, 18 L. D. 358; Gold Dirt Lode, 10 C. L. O. 119; J. Q. S. Lode, 10 C. L. O. 206; Mattingly v. Lewisohn, 8 Mont. 259; 19 Pac. Rep. 310.

11. Contra: A co-owner need not protect his rights by adverse if application for patent

owners; but if patent issues to them, they will be declared constructive trustees for the owner whose name is omitted from the application. Brundy v. Mayfield, 15 Mont. 201; Sawyer, 150 U. S. 38 Pac. Rep. 1067; Turner v.

[blocks in formation]

13. An adverse claim under section 2326, United States Revised Statutes, need not be filed by co-owner if application for patert is made by another co-owner. Hunt v. Patchin, 13 Sawy. 304; 35 Fed. Rep. 816.

14. A co-owner of a mining claim who is not joined with the other owners must, to be recognized by the Land Department, protect his rights by filing an adverse claim under section 2326, United States Revised Statutes. Grampian Lode, 1 L. D. 544.

15. Where an applicant bases his right to a patent on a relocation, in the making of which he acted as a constructive trustee for the benefit of co-owners according to their respective interests in the original location, such co-owners are not obliged to adverse the application, but may have the applicant declared trustee. Hunt v. Patchin, 13 Sawy. 304; 35 Fed. Rep. 816.

16. The regularity and legality of forfeiture proceedings against alleged delinquent co owners, under section 2324, United States Revised Statutes, will not be questioned by the Land Department if such co-owners fail to protect their rights under section 2326, United States Revised Statutes. Grampian Lode, 1 L. D. 544.

17. Dower interest in a mining location must be protected by an adverse claim under section 2326, United States Revised Statutes, as the possessory title, which is subject to dower, merges in the absolute fee-simple title on issuance of patent. Black v. Elkhorn M. Co., 49 Fed. Rep. 549.

18. A claimant under a Mexican grant must protect his rights by filing an adverse claim and instituting suit thereon. If he

fails so to do he can appear only as a protest- | utes and maintain an adverse claim in defense of its claim. Bay State Gold M. Co. v. Trevillion, 10 L. D. 194.

ant, and as such has no right of appeal from a decision of the General Land Office dismissing his protest. McGarrahan v. New Idria M. Co., 3 L. D. 422.

19. The right to follow a lode on its dip is not the proper basis of an adverse claim. Chollar Potosi M. Co. v. Julia G. & S. M. Co., Sickel's Min. Dec. 254.

20. An easement is not the subject of an adverse claim. Rockwell v. Graham, 9 Colo. 36; 10 Pac. Rep. 284; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 299; Com'r, Dec. 29, 1871, Sickel's Min. Dec. 245.

21. Right of way for a flume is protected,

if at all, by section 2339, United States Revised Statutes, and is not properly a basis for an adverse claim under section 2326,

United States Revised Statutes. Rockwell v.

Graham, 9 Colo. 36; 10 Pac. Rep. 284; 15 Mor.
Min. Rep. 299.

22. A prior locator need not adverse to secure his rights to the vein at point of intersection; but by failure to adverse he loses surface rights. When two veins join on the strike, there must be surface conflict. Hence, rules as to surface conflicts apply as to conflict between lodes. Lee v. Stahl, 13 Colo. 174; 22 Pac. Rep. 436. (Affirming S. C., 9 Colo. 406; 11 Pac. Rep. 77.) Morgenson v. Middlesex M. & M. Co., 11 Colo. 176; 17 Pac. Rep. 513.

27. A public highway is not a proper basis of an adverse claim, being only an easement. Com'r, Dec. 29, 1871.

28. The owner of a lode claim covered by an application for a placer patent is not obliged to adverse the placer application, for his claim is excepted from the operation of the placer patent by law. Noyes v. Mantle, 127 U. S. 348; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 611.

29. A lode claimant who fails to adverse

the application for patent to a placer claim covering his location is barred from thereafter claiming more than twenty-five feet on each side of his lode. Shonbar Lode, 1 L. D. 551; 3 L. D. 388. See South Star Lode, 20

L. D. 204.

30. A placer claimant may file an adverse against the application for patent to a lodeclaim conflicting with the placer claim. Bennett v. Harkrader, 158 U. S. 441.

31. Town site claimants should protect any rights they may have adverse to that of a mineral applicant by filing an adverse claim and proceeding thereon in court. Thomas Starr, 2 L. D. 759.

32. When application for patent is made 23. A. and B. are cross-lodes, A. being the for a lode claim embraced within a patented prior location. B. applies for patent. By fail-town site, the town site claimants should proing to adverse, A. loses his right to surface conflict and to the lode at point of intersection, but does not lose the remainder of his lode. A. has right of way through to work his lode. Lee v. Stahl, 9 Colo. 208; 11 Pac. Rep. 77. (Reaffirmed, 13 Colo. 174; 22 Pac. Rep. 436.) Bran- | agan v. Dulaney, 8 Colo. 408; 8 Pac. Rep. 669. Contra, Watervale M. Co. v. Leach, 33 Pac. Rep. 418 (Arizona).

24. The locator who has a vein extending through his claim owns all other veins whose apexes are within his claim, and may adverse an application for a conflicting claim located on one of such other veins. Freeland v. Hoffman, 13 Mor. Min. Rep. 289.

25. A mill site claim must be protected by an adverse. Warren Mill Site v. Copper Prince Lode, 1 L. D. 555; Shafer v. Constans, 3 Mont. 369; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 147.

26. A duly qualified corporation may locate a mill site under the provisions of section 2337 of the United States Revised Stat

tect any rights they may have by filing an adverse claim and securing a judicial determination thereof. If they fail so to do the United States will not bring suit to vacate the lode patent. Smoke House Lode, Butte City, 4 L. D. 555.

33. A town lot owner must adverse a min

eral application. Talbott v. King, 6 Mont. 76; 9 Pac. Rep. 434; Papina v. Alderson, 10 C. L. O. 52.

34. Rights between town site and mineral claimants are determined by the courts. Rico Town Site, 1 L. D. 556; Becker v. Central City Town Site, Sickel's Min. Dec. 302.

35. Town sites may be located on mineral lands, the rights of mining claimants being protected by statutory reservations thereof inserted in a town site patent (secs. 2386 and 2392, U. S. Rev. Stats.). Relative rights of mining claimants and of town site claimants are to be decided by the courts. Esler v. Town. Site of Cooke, 4 L. D. 212.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »