mining claim in Wyoming

1960As was said in the case of McInerny v. Allebrand, 107 Cal. App. 457, 461 , 290 P. 530, 531 , `* * * the recitals in the location notice cannot be accepted as proof of the various steps essential to perfect a mining claim. * * * "And, besides, if it [the location notice] had contained every essential *108 requisite of a location notice, the copy of the record would have proved nothing except the bare fact that such a notice had been recorded.

1960As was said in the case of McInerny v. Allebrand, 107 Cal. App. 457, 461 , 290 P. 530, 531 , `* * * the recitals in the location notice cannot be accepted as proof of the various steps essential to perfect a mining claim. * * * "And, besides, if it [the location notice] had contained every essential *108 requisite of a location notice, the copy of the record would have proved nothing except the bare fact that such a notice had been recorded.

1959A grubstake contract, though oral, is not within the statute of frauds. * * *” Cascaden v. Dunbar, 2 Alaska 408, 412 . *131 In Book v. Justice Mining Co., C.C., 58 F. 106, 119, 827 , it was said: “* * * An oral agreement to locate a mining claim for the benefit of another need not be in writing.

1957After the first brief had been filed in the lower court and before judgment had been entered, the Wyoming Supreme Court in Simmons v. Muir, 75 Wyo., 44 291 P.2d 810 , issued a decision which held substantially that the assessment work done by others on a mining claim may be credited to the locator.

1957After the first brief had been filed in the lower court and before judgment had been entered, the Wyoming Supreme Court in Simmons v. Muir, 75 Wyo., 44 291 P.2d 810 , issued a decision which held substantially that the assessment work done by others on a mining claim may be credited to the locator.

1955In Hagerman v. Thompson, 68 Wyo. 515 , 235 P. 2d 750, 758 , we quoted from 58 C.J.S. p. 101: “ ‘Where a locator attempts in good faith to comply with the law, the courts are inclined to be liberal in construing his acts so as not to defeat his claim by technical criticism.’ ” Again in 58 C.J.S. p. 144, it is stated: “One who claims the forfeiture of a mining location must plead it; and the burden is on him of proving the forfeiture alleged by clear and convincing evidence that the locator has failed to comply with the law; and every reasonable doubt will be resolved in favor of the validity of

1955In Hagerman v. Thompson, 68 Wyo. 515 , 235 P. 2d 750, 758 , we quoted from 58 C.J.S. p. 101: “ ‘Where a locator attempts in good faith to comply with the law, the courts are inclined to be liberal in construing his acts so as not to defeat his claim by technical criticism.’ ” Again in 58 C.J.S. p. 144, it is stated: “One who claims the forfeiture of a mining location must plead it; and the burden is on him of proving the forfeiture alleged by clear and convincing evidence that the locator has failed to comply with the law; and every reasonable doubt will be resolved in favor of the validity of

1924The ease relied upon by counsel for appellant of Murley v. Ennis, 2 Colo. 300 , we do not believe applicable to this case; it should be distinguished from it because in that case the transfer of property, which was being discussed by the Court, was of an incipient interest in a mining claim after occupancy, brought before the location, was completed.

1924It was well said in the South Dakota case of Reagin v. McKibben, 11 S. D. 270 76 N. W. 943 , that an arrangement or an agreement to locate a mining claim for the benefit of others, or in trust for others, if made prior to location, is valid, although not in writing, but after the location has been made the claim becomes real property and no agreement to convey it or any part is binding upon the vendor, unless evidenced by writing, subscribed by him or his agent.

1923Ed. 635 : “Whatever the nature and extent of a possessory right before discovery, all authorities agree that such possession may be maintained only by continued actual occupancy by a qualified locator or his representatives engaged in persistent and diligent prosecution of work looking to the discovery of mineral. ’ ’ The importance of this “continued actual occupancy” of the claim is clear when it is borne in mind that the persons protected by the rule are those who have no rights as locators, but whose locations, lacking discovery, are invalid; that the rule itself is a development of the pr

1921(Davidson v. Frazer, 36 Colo. 1 , 84 Pac. 695 , 4 L.

1921Louis Mining Co., 20 Mont. 394 , 51 Pac. 824 , and held, that where an application for patent to a mining claim embraces land claimed by another, the latter is under no obligation to file an adverse claim, but may make a valid settlement with the applicant by contract, which can be enforced against him after he obtains his patent.

1921Louis Mining Co., 20 Mont. 394 , 51 Pac. 824 , and held, that where an application for patent to a mining claim embraces land claimed by another, the latter is under no obligation to file an adverse claim, but may make a valid settlement with the applicant by contract, which can be enforced against him after he obtains his patent.

1908It is well settled also that the right to make a location cannot be based upon a trespass. (27 Cyc. 560 and cases cited.) But owing to the necessity of a discovery upon which to base the location of a mining claim, and the policy of the law to avoid breaches of the peace through conflicts between rival prospectors, the rule has been anunciated and may be regarded as well settled that where one seeks in good faith to make a location, he is entitled to exclusive possession of the land sought to be located for a reasonable time to complete his location, or for such time as may be allowed by the c

1908It is well settled also that the right to make a location cannot be based upon a trespass. (27 Cyc. 560 and cases cited.) But owing to the necessity of a discovery upon which to base the location of a mining claim, and the policy of the law to avoid breaches of the peace through conflicts between rival prospectors, the rule has been anunciated and may be regarded as well settled that where one seeks in good faith to make a location, he is entitled to exclusive possession of the land sought to be located for a reasonable time to complete his location, or for such time as may be allowed by the c

1908It is well settled also that the right to make a location cannot be based upon a trespass. (27 Cyc. 560 and cases cited.) But owing to the necessity of a discovery upon which to base the location of a mining claim, and the policy of the law to avoid breaches of the peace through conflicts between rival prospectors, the rule has been anunciated and may be regarded as well settled that where one seeks in good faith to make a location, he is entitled to exclusive possession of the land sought to be located for a reasonable time to complete his location, or for such time as may be allowed by the c

1908It is well settled also that the right to make a location cannot be based upon a trespass. (27 Cyc. 560 and cases cited.) But owing to the necessity of a discovery upon which to base the location of a mining claim, and the policy of the law to avoid breaches of the peace through conflicts between rival prospectors, the rule has been anunciated and may be regarded as well settled that where one seeks in good faith to make a location, he is entitled to exclusive possession of the land sought to be located for a reasonable time to complete his location, or for such time as may be allowed by the c

1906(Riste v. Morton et al., 49 Pac., 656 ; Hammer v. Garfield M. & M.

1905Under the requirements of the law, a valid location of a mining claim may be made whenever the prospector has discovered such indications of mineral that he is willing to spend his time and money in following with the expectation of finding ore; and a valid location of a mining claim may be made of a ledge deep in the ground, and appearing at the surface, not in the shape of ore, but in vein matter only.” (Burke et al. v. McDonald et al., 29 Pac., 98 ; Book v. Justice Min.