mining claim in Nevada

2024Id. at 205 , 161 P. at 732 .

2024Id. at 205 , 161 P. at 732 .

1965“The only person who can invalidate such a defective recorded location notice is one who makes a valid location without actual notice of the prior location.” The court further held: “ [A] s to persons with actual notice the provisions of the statute with respect to the contents of the recorded certificate are not in any sense of the word mandatory.” In Flynn Group Mining Co. v. Murphy, 18 Idaho 266 , 109 P. 851 , the holding is reflected in headnotes 11 and 12 reading, respectively, as follows: “Where it appears that a mining claim has been located in good faith, if by any reasonable construct

1965“The only person who can invalidate such a defective recorded location notice is one who makes a valid location without actual notice of the prior location.” The court further held: “ [A] s to persons with actual notice the provisions of the statute with respect to the contents of the recorded certificate are not in any sense of the word mandatory.” In Flynn Group Mining Co. v. Murphy, 18 Idaho 266 , 109 P. 851 , the holding is reflected in headnotes 11 and 12 reading, respectively, as follows: “Where it appears that a mining claim has been located in good faith, if by any reasonable construct

1965Inasmuch as appellant must rely on the strength of his own title, under the circumstances here related it was incumbent upon him to prove that he located in good faith, especially when the property was in the actual possession of another.” Johnson v. Ryan, 43 N.M. 127 , 86 P.2d 1040 , was an action by senior locators to quiet title to a mining claim.

1965Inasmuch as appellant must rely on the strength of his own title, under the circumstances here related it was incumbent upon him to prove that he located in good faith, especially when the property was in the actual possession of another.” Johnson v. Ryan, 43 N.M. 127 , 86 P.2d 1040 , was an action by senior locators to quiet title to a mining claim.

1965“The only person who can invalidate such a defective recorded location notice is one who makes a valid location without actual notice of the prior location.” The court further held: “ [A] s to persons with actual notice the provisions of the statute with respect to the contents of the recorded certificate are not in any sense of the word mandatory.” In Flynn Group Mining Co. v. Murphy, 18 Idaho 266 , 109 P. 851 , the holding is reflected in headnotes 11 and 12 reading, respectively, as follows: “Where it appears that a mining claim has been located in good faith, if by any reasonable construct

1965“The only person who can invalidate such a defective recorded location notice is one who makes a valid location without actual notice of the prior location.” The court further held: “ [A] s to persons with actual notice the provisions of the statute with respect to the contents of the recorded certificate are not in any sense of the word mandatory.” In Flynn Group Mining Co. v. Murphy, 18 Idaho 266 , 109 P. 851 , the holding is reflected in headnotes 11 and 12 reading, respectively, as follows: “Where it appears that a mining claim has been located in good faith, if by any reasonable construct

1962All these assignments are premised upon the statement quoted from Wilbur v. United States, 280 U.S. 306 , 50 S.Ct. 103 , 74 L.Ed. 445 , as follows: “The rule is established by innumerable decisions of this Court, and of State and lower federal courts, that, when the location *78 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.

1962All these assignments are premised upon the statement quoted from Wilbur v. United States, 280 U.S. 306 , 50 S.Ct. 103 , 74 L.Ed. 445 , as follows: “The rule is established by innumerable decisions of this Court, and of State and lower federal courts, that, when the location *78 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.

1958C.), 82 Fed. 697 : ‘It was never intended that the court should weigh scales to determine the value of mineral found, as between a prior and subsequent locator of a mining claim on the same lode.’ ” In Nevada Pacific Development Corp. v. Gustin (9 C.C.A.), 226 F.2d 286 , 287, dealing with a dispute between prior and subsequent locators of a tungsten lode *134 near Gabbs, Nevada, the court stated that in such a dispute “no more than a slight showing by a prior locator of discovery of a mineral-bearing vein or lode is needed to satisfy the legal requirements requisite to a valid location.” In th

1958C.), 82 Fed. 697 : ‘It was never intended that the court should weigh scales to determine the value of mineral found, as between a prior and subsequent locator of a mining claim on the same lode.’ ” In Nevada Pacific Development Corp. v. Gustin (9 C.C.A.), 226 F.2d 286 , 287, dealing with a dispute between prior and subsequent locators of a tungsten lode *134 near Gabbs, Nevada, the court stated that in such a dispute “no more than a slight showing by a prior locator of discovery of a mineral-bearing vein or lode is needed to satisfy the legal requirements requisite to a valid location.” In th

1958Co. v. Rutter, 9 Cir., 87 F. 801 , to the following effect ( 29 Nev. at p. 184 ), “The purpose of the statute, in requiring that £no location of a mining claim shall be made until the discovery of a vein or lode within the limits of the claim located,’ was to prevent frauds upon the government by persons attempting to acquire patents to land not mineral in character.

1958Co. v. Rutter, 9 Cir., 87 F. 801 , to the following effect ( 29 Nev. at p. 184 ), “The purpose of the statute, in requiring that £no location of a mining claim shall be made until the discovery of a vein or lode within the limits of the claim located,’ was to prevent frauds upon the government by persons attempting to acquire patents to land not mineral in character.

1941This court in Girton v. Daniels, 35 Nev. 438 , 129 P. 555 , laid down the rule that an oral agreement to bear one-third of the expenses of developing a mining claim covered by a two-year lease, was not void under the statute of frauds, where the lease could have been terminated by the act of the parties within one year according to its specific provisions and without violation of its terms.

1939“Before forfeiture of a mining claim can be declared for failure to do annual assessment, it must be clearly established.” Strattan v. Raine, 45 Nev. 10 , 197 P. 694 , 200 P. 533 .

1926Any labor or improvements meeting this requirement will satisfy the statute; nothing else will.’ “In Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636 , 26 L.

1926Any labor or improvements meeting this requirement will satisfy the statute; nothing else will.’ “In Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636 , 26 L.

1926“In Fredericks v. Klauser, 52 Or. 110, 116 , 96 P. 679, 682 , the court said: ‘The word “improvement,” as thus used,. evidently means such an artificial change of the physical conditions of the earth in, upon, or so reasonably near a mining claim, as to evidence a design to discover mineral therein or to facilitate its extraction, and in all cases the alteration must reasonably be permanent in character.’ “In Snyder on Mines, sec. 498, the doctrine of the cases is summarized as follows: ‘ * * * The test in all cases which should be applied to annual labor is whether the work or improvements te

1926“In Fredericks v. Klauser, 52 Or. 110, 116 , 96 P. 679, 682 , the court said: ‘The word “improvement,” as thus used,. evidently means such an artificial change of the physical conditions of the earth in, upon, or so reasonably near a mining claim, as to evidence a design to discover mineral therein or to facilitate its extraction, and in all cases the alteration must reasonably be permanent in character.’ “In Snyder on Mines, sec. 498, the doctrine of the cases is summarized as follows: ‘ * * * The test in all cases which should be applied to annual labor is whether the work or improvements te

1909Ed. 735 ; 'A mining claim perfected under the law is property, in the highest sense of that term, which may be bought, sold, and conveyed, and will pass by descent.’ It is not, therefore, subject to the disposal of the government.” (Noyes v. Mantle, 127 U. S. 353 , 8 Sup. Ct. 1134; 32 L.

1909But it is not perceived where the jurisdiction exists under the laws of the United States to grant a patent for a mine on lands owned by private individuals—which was the case here—if the lots for which defendant received a deed were included within the town-site patent, and the location of the mining claim was subsequently made. * * * They (town-site patents) are conclusive in such actions of all matters of fact necessary to their issue, where the department had jurisdiction to act upon such matter, and to determine them; but, if the lands patented were not at the time public property, having

1909But it is not perceived where the jurisdiction exists under the laws of the United States to grant a patent for a mine on lands owned by private individuals—which was the case here—if the lots for which defendant received a deed were included within the town-site patent, and the location of the mining claim was subsequently made. * * * They (town-site patents) are conclusive in such actions of all matters of fact necessary to their issue, where the department had jurisdiction to act upon such matter, and to determine them; but, if the lands patented were not at the time public property, having

1909But it is not perceived where the jurisdiction exists under the laws of the United States to grant a patent for a mine on lands owned by private individuals—which was the case here—if the lots for which defendant received a deed were included within the town-site patent, and the location of the mining claim was subsequently made. * * * They (town-site patents) are conclusive in such actions of all matters of fact necessary to their issue, where the department had jurisdiction to act upon such matter, and to determine them; but, if the lands patented were not at the time public property, having

1893(Poujade v. Ryan, 21 Nev. 449 ; Southern Cross G. & S. Min.

1893It 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, 378 .) In Flavin v. Matingly, 8 Mont. 242 , the same court held the following reference to be sufficient: “ The mining claim hereby located is situated in Summit valley mining district, Silver Bow county, Montana territory, and is situated on the northerly side, about one-fourth of a mile from Park Canyon.” It was there said: “ The objection evidently went to the effect, instead of the admissibility of the evidence.

1893It 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, 378 .) In Flavin v. Matingly, 8 Mont. 242 , the same court held the following reference to be sufficient: “ The mining claim hereby located is situated in Summit valley mining district, Silver Bow county, Montana territory, and is situated on the northerly side, about one-fourth of a mile from Park Canyon.” It was there said: “ The objection evidently went to the effect, instead of the admissibility of the evidence.

1893Rights, Secs. 95, 679, 706; Arguello v. Bours, 67 Cal. 447 ; Bruck v. Tucker, 42 Cal. 346 .) As this court has frequently decided, it is the record -of the mining claim, and not the notice of location, that must contain such reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim, and only then when the local laws require a record to be made.

1893Rights, Secs. 95, 679, 706; Arguello v. Bours, 67 Cal. 447 ; Bruck v. Tucker, 42 Cal. 346 .) As this court has frequently decided, it is the record -of the mining claim, and not the notice of location, that must contain such reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim, and only then when the local laws require a record to be made.

1887In Campbell v. Rankin, 99 U. S. 261 , an action for damages to a mining claim, decided in 1878, the court said: “ In actions of ejectment or trespass guare clausum fregit, possession by the plaintiff at the time of eviction has always been held prima facie evidence of legal title, and, as against a mere trespasser, is sufficient. (2 Greenl.

1872Thus in English v. Johnson, 17 Cal. 107 , the court decided that possession taken of a mining claim without reference to mining rules was sufficient, as against one entering by no better title, to maintain an action; and that such possession need not be evidenced by actual enclosure, but if the claim be included within distinct, visible and notorious boundaries, and if a portion of it is worked 'within such boundaries, it is sufficient against one entering without title.