scription of the claim. Upton v. Larkin, 7 Mont. 449; 17 Pac. Rep. 728; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 404; S. C., 5 Mont. 600; 6 Pac. Rep. 66.

135. A location which, after naming the locators and their interests to the extent of one thousand feet, concluded as follows: "We claim 500 feet easterly and 500 feet westerly, situate about 200 feet easterly from Sacramento," is not void for uncertainty in the Ophir mining district, Utah, if the location was made prior to the act of May 10, 1872. Red Pine Lode, 1 C. L. O. 162.

136. The question as to whether or not an object described in a location notice is a permanent monument is a matter of proof and cannot be determined by the court from an inspection of the location notice. Metcalf v. Prescott, 10 Mont. 283; 25 Pac. Rep. 1037. (Citing Russell v. Chumasero, 4 Mont. 309; 1 Pac. Rep. 713; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 508.) O'Donnell v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 248; 19 Pac. Rep. 302; Dillon v. Bayliss, 11 Mont. 171; 27 Pac. Rep. 725.

137. What are or are not permanent objects or monuments are matters of proof, and cannot be decided by the court by simple reference to the location certificate. Russell v. Chumasero, 4 Mont. 309; 1 Pac. Rep. 713; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 508.

138. A tree may be a natural object for the purpose of describing a mining claim in the location notice if susceptible of identification. Quimby v. Boyd, 8 Colo. 194; 6 Pac. Rep. 462.

one being surplusage. Metcalf v. Prescott, 10 Mont. 283; 25 Pac. Rep. 1037.

142. A location notice need only give fairly and reasonably a description of the claim to guide subsequent locators. Mt. Diablo M. & M. Co. v. Callison, 5 Sawy. 439; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 616.

143. If a location certificate contains some reference to stakes, other claims, etc., the sufficiency of description should be left to the jury. Dillon v. Bayliss, 11 Mont. 171; 27 Pac. Rep. 725.

144. The sufficiency of description in a location notice should be left to the jury if some attempt is made to describe the claim therein with reference to natural objects, monuments, stakes, etc. O'Donnell v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 248; 19 Pac. Rep. 302; Brady v. Husby, 21 Nev. 453; 33 Pac. Rep. 801.

145. The question of sufficiency of a location record, where a natural object or permanent monument is referred to, is one for the jury. North Noonday M. Co v. Orient M. Co., 6 Sawy. 299; 1 Fed. Rep. 522; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 529.

146. On the question of sufficiency of a location notice as to description, see Flavin v. Mattingly, 8 Mont. 242; 19 Pac. Rep. 384, and cases cited; O'Donnell v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 248; 19 Pac. Rep. 302.

147. A location notice, defective in that it fails to describe the claim with particularity, may, if connected with the location of the claim by evidence, be admitted for the purpose of showing the date of the initiation of a mining claim in Alaska. Bennett v. Hark

148. A location certificate must show the claim to be marked in some way to be admissible in evidence. Gilpin County M. Co. v. Drake, 8 Colo. 586; 9 Pac. Rep. 787.

149. A record of location notice which identifies a point of the claim by bearings to mountain peaks is prima facie sufficient, and is admissible in evidence, though it may be thereafter proven insufficient. Craig v. Thompson, 10 Colo. 517; 16 Pac. Rep. 24.

150. A record of location is not required by the United States laws, but if required by local law or regulation it must fix the locus of the claim by reference to natural objects or permanent monuments. Golden Fleece G. & S. M. Co. v. Cable Cons. G. & S. M. Co., 15 Nev. 450; 12 Nev. 312; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 120.

152. An original location notice is not supposed to contain a perfect description of the claim, and may be subsequently amended so as to describe the claim with more exactness. McEvoy v. Hyman, 25 Fed. Rep. 539; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 300.

153. If, in the record of location, any reference is made to a natural object, as by stating that the claim is on a certain mountain, the record is admissible in evidence, its sufficiency being a question to be determined from the evidence. Brady v. Husby, 21 Nev. 453; 33 Pac. Rep. 801.

154. Where the location of a mining claim

159. A record of a location notice which describes the claim by reference to rock monuments and stakes at the corners of the claim, and by reference to the prospect hole, is sufficient under the law in the matter of description. Hansen v. Fletcher, 10 Utah, 266; 37 Pac. Rep. 480.

160. A description of a claim in the location certificate by reference to blazed trees, rock monument or discovery shaft may be sufficient. Hansen v. Fletcher, 10 Utah, 266; 37 Pac. Rep. 480.

161. A location certificate containing some reference to natural objects or permanent monuments will be held sufficient in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Brady v. Husby, 21 Nev. 453; 33 Pac. Rep. 801; Hammer v. Garfield M. & M. Co., 130 U. S. 291.

162. A record of a location notice is admissible in evidence, if reference is made therein to the position of a neighboring claim, tin White M. Co., 13 Nev. 442; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. in the absence of objection. Gleeson v. Mar

429.

163. The requirements as to location notices and location records are different. The

the ground in dispute. Kelly v. Taylor, 23 Cal. 11 (1863).

155. A description in the record of a location notice to the effect that two mountain peaks bear in certain directions: that the claim is on a certain river near a named city; and that the shaft is on a certain small creek, at a

place a certain distance from falls therein, is

sufficient. Jackson v. Dines, 13 Colo. 90; 21 Pac. Rep. 918.

156. A location notice should contain a description of the ground located, and the same should be marked on the ground. Kahn v. Old Telegraph M. Co., 2 Utah, 174; 11 Mor. Min. Rep. 645.

157. A permanent object to which reference must be made in the record of location may be a prominent post or stake, or a shaft. Jupiter M. Co. v. Bodie Cons. M. Co., 7 Sawy. 96; 11 Fed. Rep. 666; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 411.

158. The fact that, instead of stakes called for in. the record of location, trees were

need not fix the locus of the claim by reference to natural objects or permanent monuments; but the record must so identify the claim, if required at all. Gleeson v. Martin White M. Co., 13 Nev. 442; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 429.

164. "The purpose of the notice (record) is to direct the inquirer to the place where the claim is located, and not to show its precise boundaries as marked upon the ground. It must contain enough, taken with these boundaries, to enable a person of reasonable intelligence to find the claim and trace its boundaries." Gamer v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 371; 20 Pac. Rep. 654.

165. The statement that a mining claim is "situated about fifteen hundred feet N. W. by N. of the Mountain Pride lode," in a location record, is, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, a sufficient description of the locus of the claim. Gleeson v. Martin White M. Co., 13 Nev. 442; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 439.

166. An error in a location notice in a particular not essential under the law, regulations or customs of miners is harmless and

does not vitiate a description otherwise good. Garfield M. & M. Co. v. Hammer, 6 Mont. 53; 8 Pac. Rep. 153. (See 130 U. S. 291.) Upton | v. Larkin, 7 Mont. 449; 17 Pac. Rep. 728; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 404; S. C., 5 Mont. 600; 6 Pac. Rep. 66; Flavin v. Mattingly, 8 Mont. 242; 19 Pac. Rep. 384; Gamer v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 371; 20 Pac. Rep. 654; Metcalf v. Prescott, 10 Mont. 283; 25 Pac. Rep. 1037.

167. Slight errors in a location certificate do not render it invalid or inadmissible in evidence. Gamer v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 371; 20 Pac. Rep. 654.

168. A notice of location which describes the claim by metes and bounds and as so many feet south from a well-known quartz location is sufficient under the law as to description. Garfield M. & M. Co. v. Hammer, 6 Mont. 53; 8 Pac. Rep. 153. See 130 U. S. 291.

169. A location certificate so obviously indefinite in the matter of description as to be useless for the purpose of identifying the claim is inadmissible in evidence. Gilpin County M. Co. v. Drake, 8 Colo. 586; 9 Pac. Rep. 787.

170. A claim was described in the location certificate as follows: "Beginning at the westerly end of the Gilpin County Mining Company's property, on the Williams lode, in Lake Gulch Mining District: runs thence in a westerly direction a distance of fifty feet to the easterly end of Packard and Updegraph's property on said lode." This description was held to be insufficient, and the location certificate inadmissible, though the other claims mentioned were patented ones. Gilpin County M. Co. v. Drake, 8 Colo. 586; 9 Pac. Rep. 787.

171. Technical accuracy of description is not required in a location notice. Book v. Justice M. Co., 58 Fed. Rep. 106.

172. A reference in a location notice to the position of an adjoining patented mining claim is a sufficient reference to a permanent monument under section 2324, United States Revised Statutes. Book v. Justice M. Co., 58 Fed. Rep. 106.

173. A reference in the record of a location certificate to an adjoining mining claim as "the Gambetta lode claim on the east" is such a reference to a permanent monument as to render the record admissible in evidence; the sufficiency of the description being a

question for the jury. Upton v. Larkin, 7 Mont. 449; 17 Pac. Rep. 728; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 404; S. C., 5 Mont. 600; 6 Pac. Rep. 66.

174. It is not for the court to say by mere inspection of the record of the location notice what are or what are not natural objects or permanent monuments within the meaning of the law. That is a matter of proof. A reference to adjoining claims may be shown to sufficiently fix the locus of the claim located. Russell v. Chumasero, 4 Mont. 309; 1 Pac. Rep. 713; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 508.

175. Under section 2324, United States Revised Statutes, requiring that a location record of a mining claim shall contain such description of the claim located by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim, parol evidence is admissible to show that a natural object or monument referred to in the location, but not designated therein as a permanent object, is in fact permanent. Seider v. Lafave, 4 New Mex. 369; 20 Pac. Rep. 789:

Seider v. Maxfield, 4 New Mex. 374; 20 Pac. Rep. 794. (Overruling Baxter Mtn. G. M. Co. v. Patterson, 3 New Mex. 179; 3 Pac. Rep. 741; 3 West Coast Rep. 77.)

176. An original location notice, invalid because of insufficiency of description, is admissible in connection with an amended certificate, made before the intervention of valid adverse rights. Strepy v. Stark, 7 Colo. 614; 5 Pac. Rep. 111; 4 West Coast Rep. 663.

177. If an original and an amended location certificate, taken together, give a sufficient description of the claim, they are admissible in evidence. McGinnis v. Egbert, 8 Colo. 41; 5 Pac. Rep. 653; 15 Mor. Min. Rep.

329.

178. A reference in a location certificate to the discovery cut and the stakes of the claim located is not such reference to permanent monuments as to render the record admissible in evidence. McEvoy v. Hyman, 25 Fed. Rep. 596; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 397.

179. A statement in the record of location that the claim (described as containing a certain number of feet each way from the discovery shaft, with surface ground of certain width) is situated "on the southwest side of Mount Hardin, in Portland Gulch, about 1500 feet north of the Hawkeye lode,” is not a sufficient description of the locus of the claim to render the record admissible in

180. A deed not giving boundaries, but referring to a location certificate in which a full description is given, will extend the possession to the entire claim described in such location certificate. Harris v. Equator M. & Sm. Co., 3 McCrary, 14; 8 Fed. Rep. 863; 2 Colo. Law Rep. 63; 12 Mor. Min. Rep. 178.

181. The finding that a location notice was sufficient and the boundaries properly staked is a finding of facts. Eilers v. Boatman, 111 U. S. 356; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 471; S. C., 3 Utah, 159; 2 Pac. Rep. 66; 1 West Coast Rep. 632; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 462.

182. Whether or not a location notice con

tains a sufficient description of the claim by reference to natural objects and permanent monuments is a question of fact. Eilers v. Boatman, 111 U. S. 356; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 471;

S. C., 3 Utah, 159; 2 Pac. Rep. 66; 1 West Coast Rep. 632; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 462.

183. A location notice describing the claim by a wrong legal subdivision is nevertheless good if from the other description given the land may be clearly identified. Duryea v. Boucher, 67 Cal. 141; 7 Pac. Rep. 421.

184. A. makes a discovery and posts his notice. B. then does the same. Within the time allowed each makes a location, defective in that sufficient description of the claim is not given in the certificates. B. makes and files a correct amended notice, and A. subsequently does the same. Held, that A. has the better right. Craig v. Thompson, 10 Colo. 517; 16 Pac. Rep. 24.

185. A natural object or permanent monument necessary to be referred to in a record of location may or may not be on the ground located and may consist of a prominent stake or post or of a shaft. North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 6 Sawy. 299; 1 Fed. Rep. 522; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 529.

186. A location certificate is inadmissible in evidence when it is obvious from a reading of it that there could be no certain description therein of the claim located. Darger v. Lesieur, 8 Utah, 160; 30 Pac. Rep. 363. (Affirmed in 9 Utah, 192.)

187. In the absence of a local statutory requirement, a location notice recorded need not be a copy of the notice posted on the claim, as the United States law does not re

Gird v. California Oil Co., 60 Fed. Rep. 531.

188. A location record which describes the claim as bounded by four other claims and marked by monuments at the corners is prima facie sufficient in matter of description. Southern Cross G. & S. M. Co. v. Europa M. Co., 15 Nev. 383; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 513.

189. A location notice is not of itself evidence of legal possession, but is evidence of one step taken to acquire such possession. Thompson v. Lee, 8 Cal. 276; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 610.

4. Relocation.

190. A mining claim may be relocated if either forfeited or abandoned. Golden Fleece

G. & S. M. Co. v. Cable Cons. G. & S. M. Co., 12 Nev. 312; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 120; 15 Nev. 450; Kramer v. Settle, 1 Idaho, 485; 9 Mor. Min.

Rep. 561; De Puy v. Williams, 26 Cal. 310; 5 Mor. Min. Rep. 251.

191. Where a mining claim has been relocated for abandonment the relocator may not, in applying for patent, have the improvements made by the original locator considered as having been made by himself or his grantors. Andrew M. Embry, 7 C. L. O. 5.

192. In contested mining claims the question of abandonment is one of fact, and a

hearing should be had in order to decide the question. France, Pontez & Co. v. Harrison,

5 C. L. O. 66.

193. A resumption of work prior to relocation defeats forfeiture. Gonu v. Russell, 3 Mont. 258; 12 Mor. Min. Rep. 630; Jupiter M. Co. v. Bodie Cons. M. Co., 7 Sawy. 96; 11 Fed. Rep. 666; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 411; Anderson v. Byam, 8 L. D. 388.

194. A location based upon a discovery made within the limits of another existing and valid location is illegal. The rule is otherwise where the first locators fail to comply with the law within the statutory period prior to the last location. Branagan v. Dulaney, 2 L. D. 744.

195. One who sells to another a locator's possessory right to a mining claim may not afterward relocate the land because of the invalidity of the first location, though he will not be estopped from relocating the ground if the claim is abandoned by the grantee. Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U. S. 762; 14

Mor. Min. Rep. 183; Blake v. Thorne, 16 Pac. Rep. 270.

196. An abandonment does not occur where the annual work is done for the benefit of the locator. Diamond Creek G. & S. M. Co. v. Lloyd, 9 C. L. O. 54.

197. A mining claim cannot be relocated until the first location is forfeited. Seymour v. Wood, 4 C. L. O. 82.

198. Assessment work is not done on a claim, though one owner promises to see that it is done. A third person, in collusion with the owner by whose fault abandonment occurred, relocates and applies for patent. The other owner in the original location adverses. Held, that he has no grounds for adversing, but should file a bill in equity against the applicant to have him declared a trustee. Doherty v. Morris, 11 Colo. 12; 16 Pac. Rep. 911.

199. Relocation can only be made where there has been a prior legal location. Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279; 1 Mor. Min. Rep.

510. See 3 Mont. 65.

205. Failure to perform annual expenditure upon a claim up to the 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.

206. A tortious entry is unavailing for the purpose of a valid location of a mining claim. A relocator cannot avail himself of mineral in the public lands until the discoverer has in law abandoned his claim and left the prophow derelict a claimant may have been, if he erty open for another to take up. No matter has returned and is working on his claim, it is not subject to relocation. McNeil v. Pace, 3 L. D. 267.

207. An expenditure of $500 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.

208. A location can only be made where the law allows it to be done. Hence, a relocation on lands actually covered at the time by another valid and subsisting location is void, not only against the prior locator, but all the world. Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 510; S. C., 3 Mont. 65.

209. A location of land embraced in a prior valid subsisting location is void. Rose v. Rich

201. In case of a relocated mine in dispute, a hearing should be ordered to determine all the facts as to the relocation, abandonment, etc. Albert B. Corey, 5 C. L. O. 52.

202. After failure to do work for any full year, he who first locates the ground after the expiration of the year has the better title thereto. Belk v. Meagher, 3 Mont. 65. See 104 U. S. 279; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 510.

203. An adverse relocation made during the pendency of an order holding the original claim for cancellation gives the relocator no standing to be heard as against the right of the claimant. Smuggler M. Co. v. Trueworthy Lode, 19 L. D. 356.

204. After application for patent and publication of notice thereof, and before entry, a claim may be relocated for abandonment, and the application will be canceled if no adverse claim or suit based on an adverse claim is pending against said application. Continental G. & S. M. Co. v. Gage, 10 L. D. 534.

Colo. Law Rep. 7. (See 114 U. S. 576.) Strepy v. Stark, 7 Colo. 614; 5 Pac. Rep. 111; 4 West Coast Rep. 663; Garthe v. Hart, 73 Cal. 541; 15 Pac. Rep. 93; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 492; Aurora Hill Cons. M. Co. v. 85 M. Co., 12 Sawy. 355; 34 Fed. Rep. 515; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 581.

210. A relocation of a mining claim for abandonment, before the time for doing the annual work has expired, is void. Hall v. Hale, 8 Colo. 351; 8 Pac. Rep. 580.

211. A mining claim is not subject to relocation subsequent to entry. American Hill Quartz Mine, 5 C. L. O. 114.

212. Where, in the location certificate of a mining claim of which entry has been made, it is stated that the location is upon an abandoned claim, the entryman is not required to furnish evidence of such abandonment, as the owner of the claim alleged to be abandoned loses his rights by failure to file an adverse claim. Manhattan & San Juan S. M. Co., 2 L. D. 698.

213. Lode claims located prior to May 10, 1872, upon which the required expenditure