mining claim in Washington

2015Cal. Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 582-95 , 107 S. Ct. 1419 , 94 L.

2015Cal. Coastal Comm’n v. Granite Rock Co., 480 U.S. 572, 582-95 , 107 S. Ct. 1419 , 94 L.

2015Mining, 155 F.3d at 1010 . ¶78 Federal forest service regulations, including the General Mining Act and the Multiple Use Mining Act of 1955, 30 U.S.C. §§ 611-615 , do not preempt a general state environmental regulation requiring a permit for operating a mining claim on federal land.

1967Newport Mining Co. v. Bead Lake Gold-Copper Mining Co., 110 Wash. 120 , 188 Pac. 27 (1920).

1967Newport Mining Co. v. Bead Lake Gold-Copper Mining Co., 110 Wash. 120 , 188 Pac. 27 (1920).

1940The supreme court of Oregon, in the cases of Duffey v. Mix, 24 Ore. 265 , 33 Pac. 807 , and Herron v. Eagle Mining Co., 37 Ore. 155 , 61 Pac. 417 , held that the interest of the owner of a mining claim, held under a notice of location, is not real estate or interest in the land.

1940The supreme court of Oregon, in the cases of Duffey v. Mix, 24 Ore. 265 , 33 Pac. 807 , and Herron v. Eagle Mining Co., 37 Ore. 155 , 61 Pac. 417 , held that the interest of the owner of a mining claim, held under a notice of location, is not real estate or interest in the land.

1940The supreme court of Oregon, in the cases of Duffey v. Mix, 24 Ore. 265 , 33 Pac. 807 , and Herron v. Eagle Mining Co., 37 Ore. 155 , 61 Pac. 417 , held that the interest of the owner of a mining claim, held under a notice of location, is not real estate or interest in the land.

1940The supreme court of Oregon, in the cases of Duffey v. Mix, 24 Ore. 265 , 33 Pac. 807 , and Herron v. Eagle Mining Co., 37 Ore. 155 , 61 Pac. 417 , held that the interest of the owner of a mining claim, held under a notice of location, is not real estate or interest in the land.

1929It is undoubtedly the law that, as stated by the supreme court of California, in the case of Emerson v. McWhirter, 133 Cal. 510 , 65 Pac. 1036 (affirmed by the supreme court of the United States, 208 U. S. 25 ): “Where a valid location of a mining claim has been made, and work done thereon in good faith, possession maintained, and no evidence appears from which an intention to abandon may be inferred, the court should construe the law liberally, to prevent forfeiture.

1929It is undoubtedly the law that, as stated by the supreme court of California, in the case of Emerson v. McWhirter, 133 Cal. 510 , 65 Pac. 1036 (affirmed by the supreme court of the United States, 208 U. S. 25 ): “Where a valid location of a mining claim has been made, and work done thereon in good faith, possession maintained, and no evidence appears from which an intention to abandon may be inferred, the court should construe the law liberally, to prevent forfeiture.

1929It is undoubtedly the law that, as stated by the supreme court of California, in the case of Emerson v. McWhirter, 133 Cal. 510 , 65 Pac. 1036 (affirmed by the supreme court of the United States, 208 U. S. 25 ): “Where a valid location of a mining claim has been made, and work done thereon in good faith, possession maintained, and no evidence appears from which an intention to abandon may be inferred, the court should construe the law liberally, to prevent forfeiture.

1926Whether such an expenditure under any circumstances would be available as annual assessment we do not decide, but it is clear that some direct relation between such an expenditure and actual mining must be established before such expenditure is available. ’ ’ *336 In Du Prat v. James, 65 Cal. 555 , 4 Pac. 562 , it was held that the expenditure of money and time in traveling about, regarding matters connected with the mining claim, were in no sense labor performed on the mine.

1926Whether such an expenditure under any circumstances would be available as annual assessment we do not decide, but it is clear that some direct relation between such an expenditure and actual mining must be established before such expenditure is available. ’ ’ *336 In Du Prat v. James, 65 Cal. 555 , 4 Pac. 562 , it was held that the expenditure of money and time in traveling about, regarding matters connected with the mining claim, were in no sense labor performed on the mine.

1926In Fredricks v. Klauser, 52 Ore. 110 , 96 Pac. 679 , it was held that the requirement of the federal statute, as to annual labor, or improvements upon mining claims, means such an artificial change of physical condition of the earth in, on, or so reasonably near, a mining claim as to evidence a design to discover mineral therein or to facilitate its extraction.

1926In Fredricks v. Klauser, 52 Ore. 110 , 96 Pac. 679 , it was held that the requirement of the federal statute, as to annual labor, or improvements upon mining claims, means such an artificial change of physical condition of the earth in, on, or so reasonably near, a mining claim as to evidence a design to discover mineral therein or to facilitate its extraction.

1925Co. v. Imperator-Quilp Co., 93 Wash. 692 , 161 Pac. 848 , there was involved a claim of recovery of damages for wrongful entry upon a mining claim several hundred feet below the surface and the removal of ore therefrom.

1916In Robertson v. Mine & Smelter Supply Co., 15 N. M. 606, 110 Pac. 1037 , the opinion reads as follows: “It appears that a suit was brought to foreclose a material man’s lien upon a mining claim and decree of foreclosure was awarded.

1910The location and description of each corner, with the markings thereon.’ The statute is mandatory, and substantial compliance with its provisions is necessary to perfect a valid location. ‘A location is not made by taking possession alone, but by working on the ground, recording, and doing whatever else is required for that purpose by the acts of congress and the local laws and regulations.’ (B elk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 284 , 26 L.

1910Failure to comply with such laws and rules works a forfeiture, whether the laws and rules provide for forfeiture for noncompliance or not, and the mining claim becomes subject to location by any qualified locator.” In Purdum v. Laddin, 23 Mont. 387 , 59 Pac. 153 , the court said: “Section 3612 of the Political Code provides that, within 90 days from the date of posting upon the claim the location notice required by section 3611, there must be filed with the county clerk a declaratory statement, which must contain, among other things: ‘7.

1910Failure to comply with such laws and rules works a forfeiture, whether the laws and rules provide for forfeiture for noncompliance or not, and the mining claim becomes subject to location by any qualified locator.” In Purdum v. Laddin, 23 Mont. 387 , 59 Pac. 153 , the court said: “Section 3612 of the Political Code provides that, within 90 days from the date of posting upon the claim the location notice required by section 3611, there must be filed with the county clerk a declaratory statement, which must contain, among other things: ‘7.

1910In Soderberg v. Armstrong, 116 Fed. 709 , the plaintiff sought to enjoin the defendants from extracting ore from a mining claim.

1904There was evidence to the effect that the wood cut by respondent was cut from a mining claim in possession of a third party, and was used by respondent for domestic purposes; that, a few days before the respondent was arrested, he and appellant had some difficulty over another mining claim, and the appellant thereupon, after using much abusive language, threatened to have the respondent arrested; that, upon the trial of the ci'iminal case before the commissioner, respondent was discharged, for the reason that there was not “sufficient-evidence or cause to believe him guilty.” This court, in No

1904There was evidence to the effect that the wood cut by respondent was cut from a mining claim in possession of a third party, and was used by respondent for domestic purposes; that, a few days before the respondent was arrested, he and appellant had some difficulty over another mining claim, and the appellant thereupon, after using much abusive language, threatened to have the respondent arrested; that, upon the trial of the ci'iminal case before the commissioner, respondent was discharged, for the reason that there was not “sufficient-evidence or cause to believe him guilty.” This court, in No

1901Appellant, in its brief, relies upon the case of Newbill v. Thurston, 65 Cal. 419 ( 4 Pac. 409 ), and Patterson v Tarbell, 26 Ore. 29 ( 37 Pac. 76 ), which hold that the discoverer must immediately locate 'his claim by distinctly marking the same on the ground so that the boundaries may be readily traced; and in default thereof a subsequent location, peaceably made, will prevail against a prior discoverer.

1901Appellant, in its brief, relies upon the case of Newbill v. Thurston, 65 Cal. 419 ( 4 Pac. 409 ), and Patterson v Tarbell, 26 Ore. 29 ( 37 Pac. 76 ), which hold that the discoverer must immediately locate 'his claim by distinctly marking the same on the ground so that the boundaries may be readily traced; and in default thereof a subsequent location, peaceably made, will prevail against a prior discoverer.

1901Appellant, in its brief, relies upon the case of Newbill v. Thurston, 65 Cal. 419 ( 4 Pac. 409 ), and Patterson v Tarbell, 26 Ore. 29 ( 37 Pac. 76 ), which hold that the discoverer must immediately locate 'his claim by distinctly marking the same on the ground so that the boundaries may be readily traced; and in default thereof a subsequent location, peaceably made, will prevail against a prior discoverer.

1901Appellant, in its brief, relies upon the case of Newbill v. Thurston, 65 Cal. 419 ( 4 Pac. 409 ), and Patterson v Tarbell, 26 Ore. 29 ( 37 Pac. 76 ), which hold that the discoverer must immediately locate 'his claim by distinctly marking the same on the ground so that the boundaries may be readily traced; and in default thereof a subsequent location, peaceably made, will prevail against a prior discoverer.

1898In Jacobson v. Bunker Hill Mining Co., 2 Idaho 863 ( 28 Pac. 396 ), decided in 1891, the supreme court of Idaho concluded that property in a mining claim was community property, but that conclusion was reached prior to the decision by the supreme court of the United States in Black v. Elkhorn Mining Co., supra. The right of the locator to convey without his wife joining with him being established by the federal decisions, it must be held that § 4491, Bal.