mining claim in Arizona

1967As said in Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279, 283 , [ 26 L.Ed. 735 ]: ‘A mining claim perfected under the law is property in the highest sense of that term, which may be brought, sold, and conveyed, and will pass by descent.’ It is not, therefore, subject to the disposal of the government.

1967As said in Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279, 283 , [ 26 L.Ed. 735 ]: ‘A mining claim perfected under the law is property in the highest sense of that term, which may be brought, sold, and conveyed, and will pass by descent.’ It is not, therefore, subject to the disposal of the government.

1999Id. at 102 , 185 P. at 936 . ¶48 In Earhart v. Powers, 17 Ariz. 55 , 148 P. 286 (1915), the property at issue was a mining claim.

1999Id. at 102 , 185 P. at 936 . ¶48 In Earhart v. Powers, 17 Ariz. 55 , 148 P. 286 (1915), the property at issue was a mining claim.

1999Id. at 102 , 185 P. at 936 . ¶48 In Earhart v. Powers, 17 Ariz. 55 , 148 P. 286 (1915), the property at issue was a mining claim.

1999Id. at 102 , 185 P. at 936 . ¶48 In Earhart v. Powers, 17 Ariz. 55 , 148 P. 286 (1915), the property at issue was a mining claim.

1985E.g., Andrus v. Charlestons Stone Products Co., Inc., 436 U.S. 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2002 , 56 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) (when a mining claim by stone products company on federal land required presence of “valuable minerals” in the land, claim could not be validly based on presence of water).

1985E.g., Andrus v. Charlestons Stone Products Co., Inc., 436 U.S. 604 , 98 S.Ct. 2002 , 56 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) (when a mining claim by stone products company on federal land required presence of “valuable minerals” in the land, claim could not be validly based on presence of water).

1967The requirement that a claim be “worked” has been commented upon by the Supreme Court of the United States in Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. 286 , 40 S.Ct. 321, 330 , 64 L.Ed. 567 (1920), as follows: “ * * * for to 'work’ a mining claim is to do something toward making it productive, such as developing or extracting an ore body after it has been discovered.

1967The requirement that a claim be “worked” has been commented upon by the Supreme Court of the United States in Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. 286 , 40 S.Ct. 321, 330 , 64 L.Ed. 567 (1920), as follows: “ * * * for to 'work’ a mining claim is to do something toward making it productive, such as developing or extracting an ore body after it has been discovered.

1967State v. Jones, 94 Ariz. 334 , 385 P.2d 213 (1963).

1967State v. Jones, 94 Ariz. 334 , 385 P.2d 213 (1963).

1967In Bagg, supra, our Supreme Court indicated that in a “possessory action” the possession to be protected was a “peaceable possession” ( 88 Ariz. at 188-189 , 354 P.2d 40 ) and “prior and subsisting possession” ( 88 Ariz. at 191 , 354 P.2d 40 ).

1967In Bagg, supra, our Supreme Court indicated that in a “possessory action” the possession to be protected was a “peaceable possession” ( 88 Ariz. at 188-189 , 354 P.2d 40 ) and “prior and subsisting possession” ( 88 Ariz. at 191 , 354 P.2d 40 ).

1966Simmons v. Muir, 75 Wyo. 44 , 291 P.2d 810 (1955); Schlegel v. Hough, 182 Or. 441 , 186 P.2d 516 , 188 P.2d 158 (1947); Denman v. Smith, 14 Cal.2d 752 , 97 P.2d 451 (1939).

1966Simmons v. Muir, 75 Wyo. 44 , 291 P.2d 810 (1955); Schlegel v. Hough, 182 Or. 441 , 186 P.2d 516 , 188 P.2d 158 (1947); Denman v. Smith, 14 Cal.2d 752 , 97 P.2d 451 (1939).

1966Simmons v. Muir, 75 Wyo. 44 , 291 P.2d 810 (1955); Schlegel v. Hough, 182 Or. 441 , 186 P.2d 516 , 188 P.2d 158 (1947); Denman v. Smith, 14 Cal.2d 752 , 97 P.2d 451 (1939).

1966Simmons v. Muir, 75 Wyo. 44 , 291 P.2d 810 (1955); Schlegel v. Hough, 182 Or. 441 , 186 P.2d 516 , 188 P.2d 158 (1947); Denman v. Smith, 14 Cal.2d 752 , 97 P.2d 451 (1939).

1966Simmons v. Muir, 75 Wyo. 44 , 291 P.2d 810 (1955); Schlegel v. Hough, 182 Or. 441 , 186 P.2d 516 , 188 P.2d 158 (1947); Denman v. Smith, 14 Cal.2d 752 , 97 P.2d 451 (1939).

1966Simmons v. Muir, 75 Wyo. 44 , 291 P.2d 810 (1955); Schlegel v. Hough, 182 Or. 441 , 186 P.2d 516 , 188 P.2d 158 (1947); Denman v. Smith, 14 Cal.2d 752 , 97 P.2d 451 (1939).

1960State v. Tracy, 76 Ariz. 7 , 257 P.2d 860 .

1960State v. Tracy, 76 Ariz. 7 , 257 P.2d 860 .

1953L.Ed. 501.” and in Zeiger v. Dowdy, 13 Ariz. 331 , 114 P. 565, 566 , it was held that “It is essential to the validity of a mining claim that the ground be • mineral in character, and that a discovery of mineral within the confines of the claim be made.” In Gemmel v. Swain, 28 Mont. 331 , 72 P. 662, 663 , it was held that “A notice of location (for such these notices purported to be) posted upon mineral land before discovery is made is an absolute nullity.” Acts of location confer no right in the absence of discovery.

1953L.Ed. 501.” and in Zeiger v. Dowdy, 13 Ariz. 331 , 114 P. 565, 566 , it was held that “It is essential to the validity of a mining claim that the ground be • mineral in character, and that a discovery of mineral within the confines of the claim be made.” In Gemmel v. Swain, 28 Mont. 331 , 72 P. 662, 663 , it was held that “A notice of location (for such these notices purported to be) posted upon mineral land before discovery is made is an absolute nullity.” Acts of location confer no right in the absence of discovery.

1953Sec. 65-101, A.C.A.1939; Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279 , 26 L.Ed. 735 ; McKenzie v. Moore, 20 Ariz. 1 , 176 P. 568 .

1953Sec. 65-101, A.C.A.1939; Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279 , 26 L.Ed. 735 ; McKenzie v. Moore, 20 Ariz. 1 , 176 P. 568 .

1953L.Ed. 501.” and in Zeiger v. Dowdy, 13 Ariz. 331 , 114 P. 565, 566 , it was held that “It is essential to the validity of a mining claim that the ground be • mineral in character, and that a discovery of mineral within the confines of the claim be made.” In Gemmel v. Swain, 28 Mont. 331 , 72 P. 662, 663 , it was held that “A notice of location (for such these notices purported to be) posted upon mineral land before discovery is made is an absolute nullity.” Acts of location confer no right in the absence of discovery.

1953L.Ed. 501.” and in Zeiger v. Dowdy, 13 Ariz. 331 , 114 P. 565, 566 , it was held that “It is essential to the validity of a mining claim that the ground be • mineral in character, and that a discovery of mineral within the confines of the claim be made.” In Gemmel v. Swain, 28 Mont. 331 , 72 P. 662, 663 , it was held that “A notice of location (for such these notices purported to be) posted upon mineral land before discovery is made is an absolute nullity.” Acts of location confer no right in the absence of discovery.

1949Hagan v. Dutton, 20 Ariz. 476 , 181 P. 578 ; Peachy v. Gaddis, 14 Ariz. 214 , 127 P. 739, 741 .

1949Hagan v. Dutton, 20 Ariz. 476 , 181 P. 578 ; Peachy v. Gaddis, 14 Ariz. 214 , 127 P. 739, 741 .

1949Hagan v. Dutton, 20 Ariz. 476 , 181 P. 578 ; Peachy v. Gaddis, 14 Ariz. 214 , 127 P. 739, 741 .

1949Hagan v. Dutton, 20 Ariz. 476 , 181 P. 578 ; Peachy v. Gaddis, 14 Ariz. 214 , 127 P. 739, 741 .

1949Noyes v. Black, 4 Mont. 527 , 2 P. 769 ; Tibbitts v. Ah Tong, 4 Mont. 536 , 2 P. 759 ; Oliver v. Burg, 154 Or. 1 , 58 P.2d 245 .

1949Noyes v. Black, 4 Mont. 527 , 2 P. 769 ; Tibbitts v. Ah Tong, 4 Mont. 536 , 2 P. 759 ; Oliver v. Burg, 154 Or. 1 , 58 P.2d 245 .

1949Noyes v. Black, 4 Mont. 527 , 2 P. 769 ; Tibbitts v. Ah Tong, 4 Mont. 536 , 2 P. 759 ; Oliver v. Burg, 154 Or. 1 , 58 P.2d 245 .

1949Noyes v. Black, 4 Mont. 527 , 2 P. 769 ; Tibbitts v. Ah Tong, 4 Mont. 536 , 2 P. 759 ; Oliver v. Burg, 154 Or. 1 , 58 P.2d 245 .

1934It may be that the plaintiff had not been personally upon the mining claim, but it was not necessary, as one may hold actual possession by agents or servants.” In Willows Cattle Co. v. Connell, 25 Ariz. 592, 220 Pac. 1082, 1083 , it was held: “ . . .

1934It may be that the plaintiff had not been personally upon the mining claim, but it was not necessary, as one may hold actual possession by agents or servants.” In Willows Cattle Co. v. Connell, 25 Ariz. 592, 220 Pac. 1082, 1083 , it was held: “ . . .

1926But, since the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Cameron v. United States, 252 U. S. 450 , 64 L.

1926But, since the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Cameron v. United States, 252 U. S. 450 , 64 L.

1915Ed. 464 , 208 U. S. 226 ), the latter court, in speaking of the decision of the Colorado court, said: “That court held that what was assessed was not the land on which the mining claim was located, but the claim itself; that is to say, the right of possession of the land for mining purposes.

1909The judgment of the trial court quieted the title of Howlett, Kemp, and Keely in and to the mining claim in controversy, but there was no specific finding that these plaintiffs were citizens of the United States. 'We think the ease falls squarely within the ruling of the supreme court of the United States in O’Reilly v. Campbell, 116 U. S. 418 , 6 Sup. Ct. 421, 29 L.

1909The judgment of the trial court quieted the title of Howlett, Kemp, and Keely in and to the mining claim in controversy, but there was no specific finding that these plaintiffs were citizens of the United States. 'We think the ease falls squarely within the ruling of the supreme court of the United States in O’Reilly v. Campbell, 116 U. S. 418 , 6 Sup. Ct. 421, 29 L.

1908Walsh v. Henry, 38 Colo. 393 , 88 Pac. 449 . 3.

1907Counsel for appellants argue that the case calling for the services of a keeper in such a way as to make the expense of such keeper assessment work under the law must be exceptional, relying upon the decision rendered by the supreme'court of California in Hough v. Hunt, 138 Cal. 142 , 94 Am.

1898Chief Justice Fuller quoted the above ruling, and, in accordance therewith, held that “as the grantor was a citizen, if his location were valid, his claim passed to his grantee, not by operation of law, but by virtue of his conveyance, and that the incapacity of the latter to take and hold by reason of alienage was, under the circumstances, open to question by the government only.” In Butte Hardware Co. v. Schwab, 13 Mont. 351 , 34 Pac. 24 , it was contended that the plaintiff, as a corporation, was not competent to receive and hold an interest in an unpatented mining claim; and it appeared th

1898Chief Justice Fuller quoted the above ruling, and, in accordance therewith, held that “as the grantor was a citizen, if his location were valid, his claim passed to his grantee, not by operation of law, but by virtue of his conveyance, and that the incapacity of the latter to take and hold by reason of alienage was, under the circumstances, open to question by the government only.” In Butte Hardware Co. v. Schwab, 13 Mont. 351 , 34 Pac. 24 , it was contended that the plaintiff, as a corporation, was not competent to receive and hold an interest in an unpatented mining claim; and it appeared th

1884Dutch Flat Water Co. v. Mooney, 12 Cal. 534 ; Wiseman v. McNulty, 25 Id. 230; Morenhaut v. Wilson, 52 Id. 263.