location claim in Idaho

1938If Oster (Allen) had actual notice of the location and boundaries of said claims, neither he nor his grantees will be permitted to take advantage of some technical defect in the location notice, where it appears that said claims were located in good faith.” In Sellers v. Taylor, 48 Ida. 116 , 279 Pac. 617 , in the course of the opinion it is stated: *220 “The object of the statute is to give notice of the location of the claim, and when a subsequent locator has actual knowledge of the location of a claim, he is not misled by a deficient description and cannot take advantage of it.

1938If Oster (Allen) had actual notice of the location and boundaries of said claims, neither he nor his grantees will be permitted to take advantage of some technical defect in the location notice, where it appears that said claims were located in good faith.” In Sellers v. Taylor, 48 Ida. 116 , 279 Pac. 617 , in the course of the opinion it is stated: *220 “The object of the statute is to give notice of the location of the claim, and when a subsequent locator has actual knowledge of the location of a claim, he is not misled by a deficient description and cannot take advantage of it.

1938When appellants made their locations they relied on actual knowledge that the ground had been claimed by respondent and were not deceived by the description contained in the notice. ’ ’ To the same effect see Burke v. McDonald, 2 Ida. 679, 33 Pac. 49 .

1938When appellants made their locations they relied on actual knowledge that the ground had been claimed by respondent and were not deceived by the description contained in the notice. ’ ’ To the same effect see Burke v. McDonald, 2 Ida. 679, 33 Pac. 49 .

1911Co., 34 Fed. 515 , 12 Saw. 355; Wirth v. Branson, 98 U. S. 118 , 25 L. ed. 86; Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U. S. 392 , 6 Sup. Ct. 95, 29 L. ed. 423; Pacific Coast Min. & Milling Co. v. Spargo, 16 Fed. 348 , 8 Saw. 645 ; Benson Mining & Smelting Co. v. Alta Mining & Smelting Co., 145 U. S. 428 , 12 Sup. Ct. 877, 36 L. ed. 762.) After final proof has been made by a claimant to mineral lands and the proofs have been received, accepted and allowed by the officers of the local land office and final receipt has been issued, the claimant thereafter holds the ground under his entry and receiver’s receipt;

1911Co., 34 Fed. 515 , 12 Saw. 355; Wirth v. Branson, 98 U. S. 118 , 25 L. ed. 86; Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U. S. 392 , 6 Sup. Ct. 95, 29 L. ed. 423; Pacific Coast Min. & Milling Co. v. Spargo, 16 Fed. 348 , 8 Saw. 645 ; Benson Mining & Smelting Co. v. Alta Mining & Smelting Co., 145 U. S. 428 , 12 Sup. Ct. 877, 36 L. ed. 762.) After final proof has been made by a claimant to mineral lands and the proofs have been received, accepted and allowed by the officers of the local land office and final receipt has been issued, the claimant thereafter holds the ground under his entry and receiver’s receipt;

1911Co., 34 Fed. 515 , 12 Saw. 355; Wirth v. Branson, 98 U. S. 118 , 25 L. ed. 86; Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U. S. 392 , 6 Sup. Ct. 95, 29 L. ed. 423; Pacific Coast Min. & Milling Co. v. Spargo, 16 Fed. 348 , 8 Saw. 645 ; Benson Mining & Smelting Co. v. Alta Mining & Smelting Co., 145 U. S. 428 , 12 Sup. Ct. 877, 36 L. ed. 762.) After final proof has been made by a claimant to mineral lands and the proofs have been received, accepted and allowed by the officers of the local land office and final receipt has been issued, the claimant thereafter holds the ground under his entry and receiver’s receipt;

1911Co., 34 Fed. 515 , 12 Saw. 355; Wirth v. Branson, 98 U. S. 118 , 25 L. ed. 86; Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U. S. 392 , 6 Sup. Ct. 95, 29 L. ed. 423; Pacific Coast Min. & Milling Co. v. Spargo, 16 Fed. 348 , 8 Saw. 645 ; Benson Mining & Smelting Co. v. Alta Mining & Smelting Co., 145 U. S. 428 , 12 Sup. Ct. 877, 36 L. ed. 762.) After final proof has been made by a claimant to mineral lands and the proofs have been received, accepted and allowed by the officers of the local land office and final receipt has been issued, the claimant thereafter holds the ground under his entry and receiver’s receipt;

1911Co., 34 Fed. 515 , 12 Saw. 355; Wirth v. Branson, 98 U. S. 118 , 25 L. ed. 86; Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U. S. 392 , 6 Sup. Ct. 95, 29 L. ed. 423; Pacific Coast Min. & Milling Co. v. Spargo, 16 Fed. 348 , 8 Saw. 645 ; Benson Mining & Smelting Co. v. Alta Mining & Smelting Co., 145 U. S. 428 , 12 Sup. Ct. 877, 36 L. ed. 762.) After final proof has been made by a claimant to mineral lands and the proofs have been received, accepted and allowed by the officers of the local land office and final receipt has been issued, the claimant thereafter holds the ground under his entry and receiver’s receipt;

1911Co., 34 Fed. 515 , 12 Saw. 355; Wirth v. Branson, 98 U. S. 118 , 25 L. ed. 86; Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U. S. 392 , 6 Sup. Ct. 95, 29 L. ed. 423; Pacific Coast Min. & Milling Co. v. Spargo, 16 Fed. 348 , 8 Saw. 645 ; Benson Mining & Smelting Co. v. Alta Mining & Smelting Co., 145 U. S. 428 , 12 Sup. Ct. 877, 36 L. ed. 762.) After final proof has been made by a claimant to mineral lands and the proofs have been received, accepted and allowed by the officers of the local land office and final receipt has been issued, the claimant thereafter holds the ground under his entry and receiver’s receipt;

1911Co., 34 Fed. 515 , 12 Saw. 355; Wirth v. Branson, 98 U. S. 118 , 25 L. ed. 86; Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U. S. 392 , 6 Sup. Ct. 95, 29 L. ed. 423; Pacific Coast Min. & Milling Co. v. Spargo, 16 Fed. 348 , 8 Saw. 645 ; Benson Mining & Smelting Co. v. Alta Mining & Smelting Co., 145 U. S. 428 , 12 Sup. Ct. 877, 36 L. ed. 762.) After final proof has been made by a claimant to mineral lands and the proofs have been received, accepted and allowed by the officers of the local land office and final receipt has been issued, the claimant thereafter holds the ground under his entry and receiver’s receipt;

1910This court held in Morrison v. Regan, 8 Ida. 291 , 67 Pac. 955 , that where it appears a mining claim has been located in-good faith, if by any reasonable construction the language-used in the notice describing the claim and in reference to natural objects and permanent monuments will impart knowledge of the location of the claim to a subsequent locator, it is sufficient.

1910This court held in Morrison v. Regan, 8 Ida. 291 , 67 Pac. 955 , that where it appears a mining claim has been located in-good faith, if by any reasonable construction the language-used in the notice describing the claim and in reference to natural objects and permanent monuments will impart knowledge of the location of the claim to a subsequent locator, it is sufficient.

1900In Brown v. Levan, 4 Idaho, 494 , 46 Pac. 661 , in construing this statute, we held that “permanent monuments may exist before the location, or may be erected for the purpose of tying the claim to them; but then courses and distances from them to discovery stake or corner stakes, or some other object on the ground, must be stated with reasonable accuracy.” It does not appear from the record what the width of the mouth of the canyon is.

1900In Brown v. Levan, 4 Idaho, 494 , 46 Pac. 661 , in construing this statute, we held that “permanent monuments may exist before the location, or may be erected for the purpose of tying the claim to them; but then courses and distances from them to discovery stake or corner stakes, or some other object on the ground, must be stated with reasonable accuracy.” It does not appear from the record what the width of the mouth of the canyon is.

1896In the case of Drummond v. Long, 9 Colo. 538 , 13 Pac. 543 , the location notice, after describing the boundaries of the claim, states further: “The discovery shaft being situate upon said lode within the lines of said claim in Uncompaghre mining district, county of La Plata, territory of Colorado, on the southwest side of Mt.

1889The authorities would seem to be. conclusive upon that point: Atkins v. Hendree, 1 Idaho, 95 ; Mining Co. v. Tarlet, 98 U. S. 464 ; Mining Co. v. Rose, 114 U. S. 576 , 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1055.

1889The authorities would seem to be. conclusive upon that point: Atkins v. Hendree, 1 Idaho, 95 ; Mining Co. v. Tarlet, 98 U. S. 464 ; Mining Co. v. Rose, 114 U. S. 576 , 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1055.