the surface, and that no such surface rights shall be limited by any mining regulations to less than twenty-five feet on each side of the middle of the vein at the surface, except where adverse rights existing on the 10th May, 1872, may render such limitation necessary; the end-lines of such claims to be in all cases parallel to each other. Said lateral measurements cannot extend beyond three hundred feet on either side of the middle of the vein at the surface, or such distance as is allowed by local laws. For example: 400 feet cannot be taken on one side and 200 feet on the other. If, however, 300 feet on each side are allowed, and by reason of prior claims but 100 feet can be taken on one side, the locator will not be restricted to less than 300 feet on the other side; and when the locator does not determine by exploration where the middle of the vein at the surface is, his discovery shaft must be assumed to mark such point.

11. By the foregoing it will be perceived that no lode-claim located after the 10th May, 1872, can exceed a parallelogram fifteen hundred feet in length by six hundred feet in width, but whether surface-ground of that width can be taken, depends upon the local regulations or State or Territorial laws in force in the several mining-districts; and that no such local regulations or State or Territorial laws shall limit a vein or lode claim to less than fifteen hundred feet along the course thereof, whether the location is made by one or more persons, nor cau surface rights be limited to less than fifty feet in width, unless adverse claims existing on the 10th day of May, 1872 render such lateral limitation necessary.

13. The statutes provide that no lode-claim shall be recorded until after the discovery of a vein or lode within the limits of the claim located, the object of which provision is evidently to prevent the appropriation of presumed mineral ground for speculative purposes to the exclusion of bona fide prospectors, before sufficient work has been done to determine whether a vein or lode really exists.

14. The claimant should, therefore, prior to locating his claim, unless the vein can be traced upon the surface, sink a shaft, or run a tunnel or drift, to a sufficient depth therein to discover and develop a mineral-bearing vein, lode, or crevice; should determine, if possible, the general course of such vein in either direction from the point of discovery, by which direction he will be governed in marking the boundaries of his claim on the surface. His location notice should give the course and distance as nearly as practicable from the discovery-shaft on the claim to some permanent, well-known points or objects, such, for instance, as stone monuments, blazed trees, the confluence of streams, point of intersection of well-known gulches, ravines, or roads, prominent buttes, hills, etc., which may be in the immediate vicinity, and which will serve to perpetuate and fix the locus of the claim and render it susceptible of identification from the description thereof

given in the record of locations in the district, and should be duly recorded. 15. In addition to the foregoing data, the claimant should state the names of adjoining claims, or, if none adjoin, the relative positions of the nearest claims; should drive a post or erect a monument of stones at each corner of his surface-ground, and at the point of discovery or discovery shaft should fix a post, stake, or board, upon which should be designated the name of the lode, the name or names of the locators, the number of feet claimed, and in which direction from the point of discovery; it being essential that the location notice filed for record, in addition to the foregoing description, should state whether the entire claim of fifteen hundred feet is taken on one side of the point of discovery, or whether it is partly upon one and partly upon the other side thereof, and in the latter case, how many feet are claimed upon each side of such discovery-point.

16. Within a reasonable time, say twenty days after the location shall have been marked on the ground, or such time as is allowed by the local laws, notice thereof, accurately describing the claim in manner aforesaid, should be filed for record with the proper recorder of the district, who will thereupon issue the usual certificate of location.

III. DECISIONS.

1. Marking.

1. A location must be marked to be valid.

Newbill v. Thurston, 65 Cal. 419; 4 Pac. Rep. 409; Pharis v. Muldoon, 75 Cal. 284; 17 Pac. Rep. 70; Neuebaumer v. Woodman, 89 Cal. 310; 26 Pac. Rep. 900; Becker v. Pugh, 9 Colo. 589; 13 Pac. Rep. 906; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 304 (second trial, 17 Colo. 243; 29 Pac. Rep. 173); Gleeson v. Martin White M. Co., 13 Nev. 442; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 429; George S. Dodge, 6 C. L. O. 122.

2. In the absence of a statute a discoverer

has no time in which to mark his location; but he must proceed with diligence to perfect the same. Patterson v. Tarbell, 26 Oreg. 29; 37 Pac. Rep. 76; Newbill v. Thurston, 65 Cal. 419; 4 Pac. Rep. 409.

3. Thirty days from posting of discovery notice is a reasonable time within which to mark the boundaries of the claim. Doe v. Waterloo M. Co., 70 Fed. Rep. 455.

4. In the absence of a statute a locator has a reasonable time within which to stake his

claim after discovery and posting of notice. (Twenty days held to be a reasonable time.) Doe v. Waterloo M. Co., 55 Fed. Rep. 11.

6. "All that was intended is that a person seeking to make a subsequent location could go upon the ground referred to, and from the marks made, find the boundaries of the claim." West Granite Mtn. M. Co. v. Granite Mtn. M. Co., 7 Mont. 356; 17 Pac. Rep. 547; North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 6 Sawy. 299; 1 Fed. Rep. 522; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 527; Gleeson v. Martin White M. Co., 13 Nev. 442; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 429; Taylor v. Middleton, 67 Cal. 656; 8 Pac. Rep. 594; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 284; Anderson v. Black, 70 Cal. 230; 11 Pac. Rep. 700; Doe v. Tyler, 14 Pac. Rep. 376.

7. No particular mode of marking is required in the absence of local laws or regulations. Jupiter M. Co. v. Bodie Cons. M. Co., 7 Sawy. 96; 11 Fed. Rep. 666; 4 Mor. Min. Rep.

41i.

8. Posts to mark a mining location should be kept in position in order to determine the rights of the locator therein. "But whether or not a claimant with a true record must keep good his surface monuments, we need not say; the record in this case on the theory of the record was not a true record." Pollard v. Shively, 5 Colo. 309; 2 Mor. Min. Rep. 229. 9. The requirement of the Colorado statute, that the side posts be placed in the side lines, is satisfied if they be substantially at the center. Where there is a discrepancy of one hundred and fifty feet they cannot be said to be in the center. Pollard v. Shively, 5 Colo. 309; 2 Mor. Min. Rep. 229.

10. The location was marked by stakes set for corners upon four neighboring claims. The surface ground within the stakes was three hundred feet wide by six hundred feet long. The marking of the claim was held to be sufficient under section 2324, United States Revised Statutes. (Hauswirth v. Butcher, 4 Mont. 299; 1 Pac. Rep. 714, distinguished.) West Granite Mtn. M. Co. v. Granite Mtn. M. Co., 7 Mont. 356; 17 Pac. Rep. 547.

11. A mining claim marked by a discovery monument on which is placed the notice of location, and by a stake at each of the three corners of the claim, and a monument at the center of each end line, leaving one corner of the claim unmarked, is sufficiently marked under section 2324, United States Revised Stat

12. Where the boundaries of a claim are not kept marked, the owner will not be allowed to say that his boundaries were not correctly described in his record of location as against one whose location did not conflict with the prior location as described on the record. Pollard v. Shively, 5 Colo. 309; 2 Mor. Min. Rep. 229.

13. "A subsequent locator cannot object that a prior location of a mining claim was not sufficiently marked on the ground at the time of its location, provided such prior location was sufficiently marked on the ground before such subsequent locator made any location or acquired any rights in such claim.” North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 6 Sawy. 299; 1 Fed. Rep. 522; 9 Mor. Min. Rep.

529.

14. The marking of a claim done by a trespasser may be adopted by the discoverer. Miller v. Taylor, 6 Colo. 41; 9 Mor. Min. Rep.

547.

15. Where a location notice calls for a post to mark the corner, it is not admissible on part of claimant to show said corner to be marked by a stump. Pollard v. Shively, 5Colo. 309; 2 Mor. Min. Rep. 229.

16. When the lode line is defined, if the number of feet of surface ground on each side thereof is known, the location is sufficiently marked, as its boundaries can be readily ascertained. Mt. Diablo M. & M. Co. v. Callison, 5 Sawy. 439; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 616.

17. Where a miner alleges that his recorded location notice does not correctly describe his claim, he must show clearly that his claim was plainly marked on the ground in order to defeat the claim of a subsequent locator of a conflicting claim. Pollard v. Shively, 5 Colo. 309; 2 Mor. Min. Rep. 229.

18. As to what is a sufficient monument or natural object. see Quimby v. Boyd, 8 Colo. 194; 6 Pac. Rep. 462; Gilpin County M. Co. v. Drake, 8 Colo. 590; 9 Pac. Rep. 787; North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 6 Sawy. 299; 1 Fed. Rep. 522; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 529; Jupiter M. Co. v. Bodie Cons. M. Co., 7 Sawy. 96; 11 Fed. Rep. 666; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 411; Faxon v. Barnard, 2 McCrary, 44; 1 Colo. Law Rep.. 147; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 515.

36. A mining claim must be plainly marked on the ground. Hess v. Winder, 30 Cal. 349; 12 Mor. Min. Rep. 217.

37. "Every mining location, whether lode or placer, on surveyed or unsurveyed land, should be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced. See sec. 2324, U. S. Rev. Stats. Therefore in my judgment it would be necessary to properly stake a placer location, although the same is upon and conforms to legal subdivisions." Com'r to John E. Elbert, Aug. 19, 1889, 16 C. L. O. 123.

38. A placer taken by legal subdivisions must be staked. "The purpose of the requirement that the claimant shall mark the boundaries of his claim is to inform other miners as to what portion of the ground is already occupied. The men for whose information the boundaries are required to be marked wander over the mountains with a very small outfit. They do not take surveyors with them to ascertain where the section lines run, and ordinarily it would do them no good to be informed that a quarter-section of a particular number had been taken up. For this reason it is required that the boundaries shall be distinctly marked upon the ground." White v. Lee, 78 Cal. 593; 21 Pac. Rep. 363; Gregory v. Pershbaker, 73 Cal. 109; 14 Pac. Rep. 401; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 602; Anthony v. Jillson, 83 Cal. 296; 23 Pac. Rep. 419. Contra: A placer location taken by legal subdivisions need not be staked. Reins v. Murray, 22 L. D. 409. 39. A placer claim must be staked. (In this case the placer was not taken by legal subdivisions.) Sweet v. Webber, 7 Colo. 443; 4 Pac. Rep. 752; 4 West Coast Rep. 116.

40. The staking of every twenty acres of a placer claim is not required. McDonald v. Montana Wood Co., 35 Pac. Rep. 668.

41. The boundaries of a claim and the record must correspond. Hauswirth v. Butcher, 4 Mont. 299; 1 Pac. Rep. 714.

42. To make the grant effectual, the location must be distinctly marked on the ground, and the record must contain such a description as will identify the claim by reference to some natural object or permanent monument. Neither the grant nor the right of possession attaches to locations that do not give the notice required. Hauswirth v. Butcher, 4 Mont. 299; 1 Pac. Rep. 714.

43. In the absence of a local statute or regulation, a stake at each end of the lode line properly marked is a sufficient marking of the boundaries of a claim, as the boundacenter line. Gleeson v. Martin White M. Co., ries may be traced from a definitely fixed 13 Nev. 442; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 429. (Refusing Co., 53 Cal. 149; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 497; Gelcich to follow Holland v. Mt. Auburn G. Q. M. v. Moriarty, 53 Cal. 217; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 498. 44. In the absence of local statutes or regulations, if the center of the claim is marked by stakes or monuments at each end, with a written notice on one or both describing the

claim as extending from stake to stake, with

a certain number of feet surface on each side of said line, the law as to marking of the claim is complied with. North Noonday M. 522; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 529. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 6 Sawy. 299; 1 Fed. Rep.

45. After discovery the discoverer has a reasonable time within which to trace his lode and to mark the surface lines of his claim. Gleeson v. Martin White M. Co., 13 Nev. 442; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 429.

46. Marking by placing a stake at the discovery point, and one at the center of each end, on the croppings, is sufficient, in the absence of local statutes or regulations to the contrary, without marking the corners of the claim. Gleeson v. Martin White M. Co., 18 Nev. 442; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 429.

47. A locator must use reasonable diligence in maintaining his location stakes, but is not required, absolutely, to keep them standing constantly. McEvoy v. Hyman, 25 Fed. Rep. 596; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 397.

48. The positive testimony of witnesses who saw the stakes marking a mining claim is of greater weight, aside from any question of credibility, than negative testimony of witnesses who did not find any stakes. McEvoy v. Hyman, 25 Fed. Rep. 596; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 397.

49. The limits of a patented mining claim may be identified by location monuments when the description of the claim in the patent, by courses and distances, is found to be incorrect. Cullacott v. Cash G. & S. M. Co., 8 Colo. 179; 16 Pac. Rep. 211; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 392,

50. The physical marks sufficient to serve as notice of the possession of a mining claim must be sufficient to be found by one hon