mining claim in Idaho

1960In State v. Tracy, 76 Ariz. 7 , 257 P.2d 860, 862 , in respect to attempted locations of mining claims on an Indian Reservation, the Court ruled: “ * * * A mining claim to be valid must be filed upon public land open and subject to entry at the time the location is made. * * * Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279 , 26 L.Ed. 735 ; McKenzie v. Moore, 20 Ariz. 1 , 176 P. 568 .

1960In State v. Tracy, 76 Ariz. 7 , 257 P.2d 860, 862 , in respect to attempted locations of mining claims on an Indian Reservation, the Court ruled: “ * * * A mining claim to be valid must be filed upon public land open and subject to entry at the time the location is made. * * * Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279 , 26 L.Ed. 735 ; McKenzie v. Moore, 20 Ariz. 1 , 176 P. 568 .

1965In Ambergris Mining Co. v. Day, supra, the court held that: “Evidence of the indications miners had successfully followed in the same district and on contiguous ground in attempting to find a lode or mineral deposit is admissible in determining as to whether or not a valid mineral discovery has been made by one who attempted to locate a lode claim on similar indications and showing upon adjacent ground.” 12 Idaho 108 , syllabus No. 1, 85 P. 109 .

1965In Ambergris Mining Co. v. Day, supra, the court held that: “Evidence of the indications miners had successfully followed in the same district and on contiguous ground in attempting to find a lode or mineral deposit is admissible in determining as to whether or not a valid mineral discovery has been made by one who attempted to locate a lode claim on similar indications and showing upon adjacent ground.” 12 Idaho 108 , syllabus No. 1, 85 P. 109 .

1987Co. v. Powers, 43 Ida. 532 [ 257 P. 833 .]) The requirements of the statute, as to the description and identification of a mining claim, are essential in order to give constructive notice to prospectors, locators, and purchasers of mining claims. ( Brown v. Levan, 4 Ida. 794 [ 46 P. 661 .]) It is equally important that the claim be described with reasonable certainty in a judicial decree, which is to furnish the basis for the issuance of a writ of ouster or assistance.

1987Co. v. Powers, 43 Ida. 532 [ 257 P. 833 .]) The requirements of the statute, as to the description and identification of a mining claim, are essential in order to give constructive notice to prospectors, locators, and purchasers of mining claims. ( Brown v. Levan, 4 Ida. 794 [ 46 P. 661 .]) It is equally important that the claim be described with reasonable certainty in a judicial decree, which is to furnish the basis for the issuance of a writ of ouster or assistance.

1987Co. v. Powers, 43 Ida. 532 [ 257 P. 833 .]) The requirements of the statute, as to the description and identification of a mining claim, are essential in order to give constructive notice to prospectors, locators, and purchasers of mining claims. ( Brown v. Levan, 4 Ida. 794 [ 46 P. 661 .]) It is equally important that the claim be described with reasonable certainty in a judicial decree, which is to furnish the basis for the issuance of a writ of ouster or assistance.

1987Co. v. Powers, 43 Ida. 532 [ 257 P. 833 .]) The requirements of the statute, as to the description and identification of a mining claim, are essential in order to give constructive notice to prospectors, locators, and purchasers of mining claims. ( Brown v. Levan, 4 Ida. 794 [ 46 P. 661 .]) It is equally important that the claim be described with reasonable certainty in a judicial decree, which is to furnish the basis for the issuance of a writ of ouster or assistance.

1960Ambergris Mining Co. v. Day, 12 Idaho 108, 121 , 85 P. 109 ; Swanson v. Kettler, 17 Idaho 321, 331 , 105 P. 1059 , affirmed in Swanson v. Sears, 224 U.S. 180 , 32 S.Ct. 455 , 56 L.Ed. 721 ; Alaska Consol.

1960Ambergris Mining Co. v. Day, 12 Idaho 108, 121 , 85 P. 109 ; Swanson v. Kettler, 17 Idaho 321, 331 , 105 P. 1059 , affirmed in Swanson v. Sears, 224 U.S. 180 , 32 S.Ct. 455 , 56 L.Ed. 721 ; Alaska Consol.

1960Ambergris Mining Co. v. Day, 12 Idaho 108, 121 , 85 P. 109 ; Swanson v. Kettler, 17 Idaho 321, 331 , 105 P. 1059 , affirmed in Swanson v. Sears, 224 U.S. 180 , 32 S.Ct. 455 , 56 L.Ed. 721 ; Alaska Consol.

1960Ambergris Mining Co. v. Day, 12 Idaho 108, 121 , 85 P. 109 ; Swanson v. Kettler, 17 Idaho 321, 331 , 105 P. 1059 , affirmed in Swanson v. Sears, 224 U.S. 180 , 32 S.Ct. 455 , 56 L.Ed. 721 ; Alaska Consol.

1942Moreover, in Dunlap v. Pattison, 4 Idaho 473, 476, 42 P. 504 , this court held that “a person may locate a mining claim in the name of himself and others named in the notice of location, and, when so located, title will be good in the others not present and having no notice of the location,” following the holding in the early case of Morton v. Solambo Copper Mining Co., 26 Cal. 527 .

1887(Gore v. McBrayer, 18 Cal. 582 ; Morton v. Mining Co., 26 Cal. 527 .) So at that time it was well understood on this coast that the law authorized a location by an agent; or, in other words, that a valid location could be made without the locator participating in person. (2 Esteems Pleadings and Practice, 2252.) The law as interpreted by the courts had been acted upon in all this mining region until it had, in a certain sense, become a rule of property.

1912Appellant places special reliance upon McCowan v. Maclay, 16 Mont. 234 , 40 Pac. 602 , and Cleary v. Skiffich, 28 Colo. 362 , 89 Am.

1912Appellant places special reliance upon McCowan v. Maclay, 16 Mont. 234 , 40 Pac. 602 , and Cleary v. Skiffich, 28 Colo. 362 , 89 Am.

2022Idaho, after explaining that the plaintiff had a presumptive right to the mine by being in possession of it); Staples v. Rossi, 7 Idaho 618, 625, 65 P. 67, 69 (1901) (upholding a preliminary injunction where “the plaintiff’s complaint shows his right to a certain mining claim; shows that the defendants were trespassing thereon, cutting timber for the purpose of removing the same, and would remove the same unless prohibited by the process of the court.”); Farm Serv., Inc. v. U. S. Steel Corp., 90 Idaho 570, 590–91, 414 P.2d 898, 909–10 (1966) (reversing an order granting a preliminary injunctio

2022Idaho, after explaining that the plaintiff had a presumptive right to the mine by being in possession of it); Staples v. Rossi, 7 Idaho 618, 625, 65 P. 67, 69 (1901) (upholding a preliminary injunction where “the plaintiff’s complaint shows his right to a certain mining claim; shows that the defendants were trespassing thereon, cutting timber for the purpose of removing the same, and would remove the same unless prohibited by the process of the court.”); Farm Serv., Inc. v. U. S. Steel Corp., 90 Idaho 570, 590–91, 414 P.2d 898, 909–10 (1966) (reversing an order granting a preliminary injunctio

1987The case of Norrie v. Fleming, 62 Idaho 381 , 112 P.2d 482 (1941), is even more explicit as to the requirements to be satisfied in establishing a valid claim in a quiet title action: The statute is specific in the enumeration of things to be done in order to make a valid location of a mining claim (secs. 46-601 and 46-602, I.C.A.); and it has been held by this court that the requirement of the statute, that the location monuments be "marked with the name of the claim," is mandatory. ( Buckeye Min.

1987The case of Norrie v. Fleming, 62 Idaho 381 , 112 P.2d 482 (1941), is even more explicit as to the requirements to be satisfied in establishing a valid claim in a quiet title action: The statute is specific in the enumeration of things to be done in order to make a valid location of a mining claim (secs. 46-601 and 46-602, I.C.A.); and it has been held by this court that the requirement of the statute, that the location monuments be "marked with the name of the claim," is mandatory. ( Buckeye Min.

1987Idaho Code § 6-405 provides in some detail that "any person having a bona fide claim to the possession, title of, or interest in, any real property or mining claim ... and it is necessary for the ascertainment, enforcement or protection of such rights or interest, that an examination or survey of such property be had ... the party desiring the same may apply to the court or the judge there of ... for an order for such examination and survey... ." Significantly, the case of Norrie v. Fleming, supra , is set out in the annotation to the first section of the chapter entitled Quieting Title, for t

1987Idaho Code § 6-405 provides in some detail that "any person having a bona fide claim to the possession, title of, or interest in, any real property or mining claim ... and it is necessary for the ascertainment, enforcement or protection of such rights or interest, that an examination or survey of such property be had ... the party desiring the same may apply to the court or the judge there of ... for an order for such examination and survey... ." Significantly, the case of Norrie v. Fleming, supra , is set out in the annotation to the first section of the chapter entitled Quieting Title, for t

1987In Lewiston Lime Co. v. Barney, 87 Idaho 462 , 394 P.2d 323 (1964), Justice McFadden writing for a unanimous court, upheld as against a contention that a previous decree was not res judicata to the action before the court, that it was res judicata because " the decree in case no. 5769 (the provisions action) also contained the metes and bounds description of the claim.

1987In Lewiston Lime Co. v. Barney, 87 Idaho 462 , 394 P.2d 323 (1964), Justice McFadden writing for a unanimous court, upheld as against a contention that a previous decree was not res judicata to the action before the court, that it was res judicata because " the decree in case no. 5769 (the provisions action) also contained the metes and bounds description of the claim.

1984As the United States Supreme Court stated in Wilbur v. United States, 280 U.S. 306, 307 , 50 S.Ct. 103, 104 , 74 L.Ed. 445 (1929): “The rule is established by innumerable decisions of this Court, and of state and lower federal courts, that, when the location of a mining claim is perfected under the law, it has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession.

1984As the United States Supreme Court stated in Wilbur v. United States, 280 U.S. 306, 307 , 50 S.Ct. 103, 104 , 74 L.Ed. 445 (1929): “The rule is established by innumerable decisions of this Court, and of state and lower federal courts, that, when the location of a mining claim is perfected under the law, it has the effect of a grant by the United States of the right of present and exclusive possession.

1965But something must be found in place, as rock, clay, or earth, so colored, stained, changed, and decomposed by the mineral elements as to mark and distinguish it from the inclosing country.” 2 Idaho at 682 , 33 P. at 50 .

1965But something must be found in place, as rock, clay, or earth, so colored, stained, changed, and decomposed by the mineral elements as to mark and distinguish it from the inclosing country.” 2 Idaho at 682 , 33 P. at 50 .

1963Co., 56 Idaho 403 , 55 P.2d 152 , this Court had under consideration a contention that ■the lien involved was invalid because the description used in the notice included property not subject to the lien and the Court stated: “It does not appear that there was any fraudulent intent, nor that anyone was injured due to the fact that the lien claims may have included more property than necessary or property other than that actually subject to lien.

1963Co., 56 Idaho 403 , 55 P.2d 152 , this Court had under consideration a contention that ■the lien involved was invalid because the description used in the notice included property not subject to the lien and the Court stated: “It does not appear that there was any fraudulent intent, nor that anyone was injured due to the fact that the lien claims may have included more property than necessary or property other than that actually subject to lien.

1960In State v. Tracy, 76 Ariz. 7 , 257 P.2d 860, 862 , in respect to attempted locations of mining claims on an Indian Reservation, the Court ruled: “ * * * A mining claim to be valid must be filed upon public land open and subject to entry at the time the location is made. * * * Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279 , 26 L.Ed. 735 ; McKenzie v. Moore, 20 Ariz. 1 , 176 P. 568 .

1960In State v. Tracy, 76 Ariz. 7 , 257 P.2d 860, 862 , in respect to attempted locations of mining claims on an Indian Reservation, the Court ruled: “ * * * A mining claim to be valid must be filed upon public land open and subject to entry at the time the location is made. * * * Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279 , 26 L.Ed. 735 ; McKenzie v. Moore, 20 Ariz. 1 , 176 P. 568 .

1960In State v. Tracy, 76 Ariz. 7 , 257 P.2d 860, 862 , in respect to attempted locations of mining claims on an Indian Reservation, the Court ruled: “ * * * A mining claim to be valid must be filed upon public land open and subject to entry at the time the location is made. * * * Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279 , 26 L.Ed. 735 ; McKenzie v. Moore, 20 Ariz. 1 , 176 P. 568 .

1960In State v. Tracy, 76 Ariz. 7 , 257 P.2d 860, 862 , in respect to attempted locations of mining claims on an Indian Reservation, the Court ruled: “ * * * A mining claim to be valid must be filed upon public land open and subject to entry at the time the location is made. * * * Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279 , 26 L.Ed. 735 ; McKenzie v. Moore, 20 Ariz. 1 , 176 P. 568 .

1923This argument is fully answered by and disposed of in Pierce v. National Bank of Commerce, 268 Fed. 487, at 494 ; Gage Lumber Co. v. McEldowney, 207 Fed. 255, at 260 , 124 C.

1923This argument is fully answered by and disposed of in Pierce v. National Bank of Commerce, 268 Fed. 487, at 494 ; Gage Lumber Co. v. McEldowney, 207 Fed. 255, at 260 , 124 C.

1923This argument is fully answered by and disposed of in Pierce v. National Bank of Commerce, 268 Fed. 487, at 494 ; Gage Lumber Co. v. McEldowney, 207 Fed. 255, at 260 , 124 C.

1923A mining claim was leased for ten years under in part the following provision: “. . . . that ‘all improvements erected on said premises by said second party (the Weller Company), or its assigns, or by anyone who may claim under it or them, are bound for the payment of each instalment of rent, and for the county and state taxes and all other taxes and demands, as aforesaid, and for any arrears of rent or taxes,’ ” wherein, following the Walker v. Brown case, suipra, the court said: “The lease of July 15, 1913, evidences an equitable lien far within the definition here given, and it fastened suc

1916Harbor Boom Co. v. Superior Court, 65 Wash. 129 , 117 Pac. 755 , the court there quotes from the decision of Samish River Boom Co. v. Union Boom Co., 32 Wash. 586 , 73 Pac. 670 , as follows: “There can be no doubt that property held by a corporation simply as a proprietor may be taken for a public use by another corporation having the right of eminent domain. ’ ’ Simply because the appellant company owned the land sought to be condemned as a mining claim and held it for a prospective public use, does not protect it from being condemned for a public use upon proper application.

1916Harbor Boom Co. v. Superior Court, 65 Wash. 129 , 117 Pac. 755 , the court there quotes from the decision of Samish River Boom Co. v. Union Boom Co., 32 Wash. 586 , 73 Pac. 670 , as follows: “There can be no doubt that property held by a corporation simply as a proprietor may be taken for a public use by another corporation having the right of eminent domain. ’ ’ Simply because the appellant company owned the land sought to be condemned as a mining claim and held it for a prospective public use, does not protect it from being condemned for a public use upon proper application.

1916Harbor Boom Co. v. Superior Court, 65 Wash. 129 , 117 Pac. 755 , the court there quotes from the decision of Samish River Boom Co. v. Union Boom Co., 32 Wash. 586 , 73 Pac. 670 , as follows: “There can be no doubt that property held by a corporation simply as a proprietor may be taken for a public use by another corporation having the right of eminent domain. ’ ’ Simply because the appellant company owned the land sought to be condemned as a mining claim and held it for a prospective public use, does not protect it from being condemned for a public use upon proper application.

1916Harbor Boom Co. v. Superior Court, 65 Wash. 129 , 117 Pac. 755 , the court there quotes from the decision of Samish River Boom Co. v. Union Boom Co., 32 Wash. 586 , 73 Pac. 670 , as follows: “There can be no doubt that property held by a corporation simply as a proprietor may be taken for a public use by another corporation having the right of eminent domain. ’ ’ Simply because the appellant company owned the land sought to be condemned as a mining claim and held it for a prospective public use, does not protect it from being condemned for a public use upon proper application.

1912In Phillips v. Salmon River etc. Co., 9 Ida. 149 , 72 Pac. 886 , it was held that a description of the mining claim contained in-a notice of lien in the following language was sufficient: “The mining claim known as the ‘Salem Bar,’ situated on the Idaho side of the main channel of the Snake river one-half mile north or down the river from the mouth of the Grande Ronde, in Nez Perce county, Idaho.” The authorities abundantly sustain us in this view.

1912In Phillips v. Salmon River etc. Co., 9 Ida. 149 , 72 Pac. 886 , it was held that a description of the mining claim contained in-a notice of lien in the following language was sufficient: “The mining claim known as the ‘Salem Bar,’ situated on the Idaho side of the main channel of the Snake river one-half mile north or down the river from the mouth of the Grande Ronde, in Nez Perce county, Idaho.” The authorities abundantly sustain us in this view.

1912Appellant places special reliance upon McCowan v. Maclay, 16 Mont. 234 , 40 Pac. 602 , and Cleary v. Skiffich, 28 Colo. 362 , 89 Am.

1912(Hotaling v. Cronise, 2 Cal. 60 ; Tibbetts v. Moore, 23 Cal. 208 ; Tredinnick v. Red Cloud Con.

1912(Hotaling v. Cronise, 2 Cal. 60 ; Tibbetts v. Moore, 23 Cal. 208 ; Tredinnick v. Red Cloud Con.