Sivut kuvina


center at the surface. Many others are located upon coveries of large deposits or chambers that do not conform in any respect to the common understanding of the term "vein," and of which so little was known when the law was enacted, that they could not have been contemplated by the law-makers when the statute was enacted. These peculiarities of formation have led the miners to rely upon the center of the discovery shaft or tunnel, as the proper point from which to measure the width of their claims, and locations made in this manner have generally been regarded as valid.

1 Rev. Stat. U. S. § 2320, ante, p. 14.

2 Act of Congress July 26, 1866. "§ 4. No location hereafter made, shall exceed 200 feet in length, along the vein for each locator, with an additional claim for discovery, to the discoverer of the lode, with the right to follow such vein to any depth, with all its dips, variations and angles, together with a reasonable quantity of surface for the convenient working of the same, as fixed by local rules. And provided further, that no person may make more than one location on the same lode, and not more than 3,000 feet shall be taken in any one claim, by any association of persons."

3 Rev. Stat. § 2320, ante, p. 14.

4 Eureka, &c. Co. vs. Richmond M. Co., 4 Sawyer, 302.

5 Zollers vs. Evans, 1 Col. Law Rep. 217; Vanzandt vs. Argentine M. Co., id, 524.

6 That the form of a claim shall be substantially a parallelogram. Sickel's Mining Rules & Dec. 36.

7 See post, Ch. xiv, Land Office Decisions.

§ 27. Provisions as to recording and herein of notice to subsequent purchasers.-There is nothing in the general law requiring a record to be made of the location; but the statute seems to take it for granted that this will be required by local laws or regulations.1 When, however, such records are made, they are required to contain the name of the locator, the date of location, and such a description of the claim by reference to natural objects or permanent monuments as will identify the claim.2 Whether it is necessary to record at

all, and within what time, in what office, by whom, and in what manner this record must be made, and the effect of the record is left entirely to local regulation, as will be observed by reference to the section of the statute cited. But whatever effect the recording of the claim may be given by the local statute, as notice to subsequent locators; and whatever may be the consequences of failure to record, in the manner and within the time prescribed, when the local regulation requires a record to be made, it becomes an essential step in the acquisition of title. A failure to record, however, will not ordinarily defeat the right of one in actual possession. It has been decided that the object of requiring a record of the claim, can be nothing more than is contemplated by the general recording acts of the states, to give notice to subsequent claimants of the same ground; and, where there has been a failure to record, prior to the subsequent location, notice by any other means, as by possession, would be sufficient. Whatever be the time fixed within which the claim must be recorded, a failure to record within the time will not destroy the effect of the record as to subsequent claimants, if it be recorded before the subsequent location or purchase. Failure to record a deed cannot be taken advantage of by a subsequent purchaser with sufficient knowledge or notice to put him upon inquiry,7 or by one who is not a purchaser in good faith, and for a valuable consideration paid.8 Unless the locator himself is required to enter his location on the records, his rights will not be affected by errors in the records.9 The record when made will not be vitiated by the subsequent correction of errors in the description of the claim, or by erasing the name of one of the locators.10 Ordinarily, all that is required of the locator is to deposit the necessary notice or certificate of location with the custodian of the records,

and when he has done this his act takes effect from that date, as though the instrument were entered on the records instantaneously.11

1 Rev. Stat. § 2324; ante, p. 15; Southern Cross, &c. Co. vs. Europa M. Co., 15 Nev. 383; Golden Fleece Co. vs. Cable Co., 12 Nev. 312.

2 Ibid.

3 Golden Fleece M. Co. vs. Cable Con. Co., 12 Nev. 312.

4 Pollard vs. Shively, 1 Col. Law Rep. 230; Faxon vs. Barnard, 1 Col. Law Rep. 145.

5 Campbell vs. Rankin, 99 U. S. 261; Pollard vs. Shively, 1 Col. Law Rep. 230; Partridge vs. McKinney, 10 Cal. 181; Fair vs. Stevenot, 29 Cal. 486; Kinney vs. Cons. Va. M. Co., 4 Sawyer, 450. And a written notification posted on a stake set on the claim after discovery, but prior to location, has been held sufficient to warn others of the discoverer's intention to locate. Erhardt vs. Boaro (U. S. Cir. Ct.) 1 Col. Law Rep. 497.

6 Faxon vs. Barnard, 1 Col. Law Rep. 145 (Decision by HALLETT, J., U. S. Cir. Ct., Dist. Col.)

7 Lawton vs. Gordon, 37 Cal. 202; Dixon vs. Doe, 1 Smed. & M. 70; Priest vs. Rice, 1 Pick. 164; Williamson vs. Brown, 15 N. Y. 354; Clark vs. Trindle, 52 Pa. St., 492; Musgrove vs. Bonser, 5 Oreg. 312; Nute vs. Nute, 41 N. H. 60; Galland vs. Jackman, 26 Cal. 79; Myers vs. Spooner, 55 Cal. 257; Pollard vs. Shively, 1 Col. Law Rep. 230 (Opinion by ELBERT, C. J., Sup. Ct. Col., Dec. 7, 1880.) Wade on Notice, §§ 251-254, 273, et seq.

8 Long vs. Dollarhide, 24 Cal. 218; Lasey vs. Simpson, 11 N. J. Eq. 246; Aubuchon vs. Bender, 44 Mo. 560; Setter vs. Alvey, 15 Kan. 157; Wade on Notice, § 226.

9 Myers vs. Spooner, 55 Cal. 257; Kelly vs. Taylor, 23 Cal. 11; Merrick vs. Wallace, 19 Ill. 486; Riggs vs. Boylan, 4 Biss. 445; Oats vs. Walls, 28 Ark. 244; Throckmorton vs. Price, 28 Tex. 605; Franklin vs. Cannon, 1 Root (Conn.) 500; McDonald vs. Leach, Kirby (Conn.) 72; Alvis vs. Morrison, 63 Ill. 181.

10 Gleason vs. Martin White M. Co., 13 Nev. 442.

11 Harrold vs. Simons, 9 Mo. 326; Warnock vs. Wightman, 1 Brev. 339; Jarvis vs. Aikens, 25 Vt. 635.

§ 28. What record to contain, Description.— The name of the locator, so far as this statute controls the matter, may be inserted in any portion of the location

notice filed for record, provided it appears in such a way as to indicate for what it is inserted, and it is not at all essential that it shall be inserted by him or with his knowledge, provided it be not inserted fraudulently. The date of location will depend upon the local law prescribing the acts which must be performed in order to locate the claim. The date of location would properly be the date when those acts are completed. The most important requisite of the federal statute in respect of the record, is the description. It has already been stated that the law will be sufficiently complied with as to the boundaries of the claim, if when surveyed they are "distinctly marked on the ground," etc.1 If this be done by substantial posts, stakes or monuments, these might be regarded as of sufficient permanence for reference in the record. The object of the description is identification, and whatever serves this purpose will be sufficient. The provision that where vein or lode claims are upon surveyed lands, the description shall designate the location of the claim with reference to the lines of the public surveys,3 applies only to the description in patent surveys, and has no connection with the section requiring a certain description in the record; yet where it is practicable, reference to section corners would be desirable. The following description in a bill of sale, was held sufficient to admit the paper in evidence, as the points mentioned might be well-known monuments: "Commencing at an oak bush near the gate of Meyers' cow-yard, running straight across the river to the head of the wing-dam put in by Owens & Co., in 1868; from thence to a prominent point of granite bed-rock in El Dorado county; from this line down to the old Willow Bar line."4 It is not necessary that the "natural object or permanent monument" should be such as the court would take judicial notice of. Parol proof may be introduced to identify the

claim by reference to the monuments mentioned in the description.5 Reference to the discovery shaft, tunnel, corners, or permanent improvements on other claims have generally been held sufficient, as well as to particular natural and prominent objects in the neighborhood. But the reference must be sufficiently definite to serve the purpose of identification. The following description has for obvious reasons been held insufficient. "Situated on the north side of Iowa gulch, about timber line, on the west side of Bald mountain. Said claim is staked and marked as the law requires." 6

1 Ante, § § 25, 26.

2 Phillpots vs. Blasdel, 8 Nev. 61.

Description by reference to corner monuments, and well known claims by which it is bounded held sufficient. Southern Cross, &c. Co., vs. Europa M. Co., 15 Nev. 383.

3 Rev. Stat. U. S. § 2327; ante, p. 19.

4 Meyers vs. Farquharson, 46 Cal. 190.

5 Began vs. O'Reilly, 32 Cal. 11; Reed vs. Spicer, 27 Cal. 57. 6 Faxon vs. Barnard, 1 Col. Law Rep. 145.

§ 29. Annual labor.-The statute now in force was the first act of Congress requiring annual labor, or “assessment work,” as it is commonly called, as a condition of holding mining claims on the public domain. It provides for two classes of claims: (1) those located prior to May 10, 1872, and (2) those located subsequent to May 10, 1872. The first require $10 worth of work to each 100 feet, and the latter $100 worth of work to each claim regardless of size.1 Prior to the enactment of this law there was no general law on the subject. It was governed entirely by district rules or local legislation. The former when reasonable were sustained by the courts.2 Where the labor required was useless, in that it was required to be done in the district, where the only labor, useful for the development of the claim must necessarily be done out of the district, the rule was held unreasonable as

« EdellinenJatka »