mining claim in Montana

1897In Garfield Mining Co. v. Hammer, 6 Mont. 53 , 8 Pac. 153 , this, court held that a description in a location notice referring to a mining claim was a sufficient reference to a permanent monument, saying that such mining claim ‘ ‘will be presumed to be a well-known natural object or permanent monument until the contrary appears. ’ ’ There is no evidence or presumption in this case that the three mining claims referred to in the Nevada King notice of location are not patented, and, if not patented, that they are not well-known and permanent monuments.

1892Co. v. Hammer, supra, Mr. Justice Galbraith, for the court, said: “Now, although the courts of this Territory, in determining' the title to mining claims where there is a dispute in relation thereto in the land office, have adopted the forms of action by which title to land is tried, which may be either by the action of ejectment or to quiet title, yet the real question to be determined is, who is entitled to the patent from the United States government to the mining claim in controversy? or, in other words, who has become the purchaser of the mining claim, and divested the title of the govern

2008Co., 5 Mont, at 422 , 5 P. at 580.

1895Co. v. Clark, 5 Mont. 378 , 5 Pac. 570 ; Talbot v. King, 6 Mont. 76 , 9 Pac. 434 ; Butte City Smokehouse Lode Cases,- 6 Mont. 397 , 12 Pac. 858 ), which involved contests between parties claiming under mining patents and others claiming under townsite patents, and in which very able and learned opinions were given by the supreme court of the territory of Montana, the mining claim patented had been located, and the rights of the mining claimant had thus attached, before the townsite patent was issued.

1897Co. v. Hammer, 6 Mont. 54 , 8 Pac. 153 , which was an action to quiet title, the court said that, where respondent’s claim of ownership and right of possession were put in issue by answer, it devolved upon the respondent plaintiff to show affirmatively' on the trial that it had a valid location of a mining claim by complying with all the requirements of the acts of congress and the local rules and regulations relative to mining claims.

1897In Garfield Mining Co. v. Hammer, 6 Mont. 53 , 8 Pac. 153 , this, court held that a description in a location notice referring to a mining claim was a sufficient reference to a permanent monument, saying that such mining claim ‘ ‘will be presumed to be a well-known natural object or permanent monument until the contrary appears. ’ ’ There is no evidence or presumption in this case that the three mining claims referred to in the Nevada King notice of location are not patented, and, if not patented, that they are not well-known and permanent monuments.

1895Co. v. Clark, 5 Mont. 378 , 5 Pac. 570 ; Talbot v. King, 6 Mont. 76 , 9 Pac. 434 ; Butte City Smokehouse Lode Cases,- 6 Mont. 397 , 12 Pac. 858 ), which involved contests between parties claiming under mining patents and others claiming under townsite patents, and in which very able and learned opinions were given by the supreme court of the territory of Montana, the mining claim patented had been located, and the rights of the mining claimant had thus attached, before the townsite patent was issued.

1894(Talbott v. King, 6 Mont. 76 .) We quote from tliat case as follows: “Matter is alleged in the answer as an estoppel, and on the trial the defendants sought to prove that the former owners of the Smokehouse claim, and while so the owners thereof, and knowing that the said claim would be in the proposed boundaries of the townsite of Butte, joined others in petitioning the probate judge to enter said townsite for a patent, and in accordance therewith the town site was patented, and the owners of the Smokehouse claim accepted from the probate judge deeds to lots on said claim; and that these owne

1895In Mayer v. Carothers, 14 Mont. 274 , this court refused to depart from the rule announced in King v. Thomas, supra, and again held that the statute does not run against a mining claim until issuance of patent.

1895It has long been adjudged in this court, — although the writer of this opinion, with whom is Mr. Justice Hunt, agrees to such adjudication only on the ground of stare decisis (Mayer v. Carothers, 14 Mont. 274 ; Clark v. Bernard, 15 Mont. 176 )— that the statute of limitations commences to run against a mining claim only upon the issuance of a United States patent therefor.

1895(Compiled Statutes, fifth division, § 1477.) That this requirement of our statute is within the power of the state legislature was doubted in Wenner v. McNulty, 7 Mont. 30 , but was ■finally affirmed in O'Donnell v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 248 , which ruling was afterwards followed as the law of the case on the second appeal of O'Donnell v. Glenn, 9 Mont. 452 , and was followed as sta/re decisis in Metcalf v. Prescott, 10 Mont. 283 .

1889We refer to the cases of Russell v. Chumasero, 4 Mont. 309 ; Garfield Mining Co. v. Hammer, 6 Mont. 53 ; Upton v. Larkin, 7 Mont. 449 ; Flavin v. Mattingly, 8 Mont. 242 ; and O’Donnell v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 248 , in which these matters are fully discussed and settled.

2017Musselshell Cnty., 92 Mont. at 209-10 , 11 P.2d at 777 .

2017Musselshell Cnty., 92 Mont. at 209-10 , 11 P.2d at 777 .

2016It was interpreted again in Superior Coal Co. v. Musselshell County, 98 Mont. 501 , 41 P.2d 14 (1935), which, after discussing both Northern Pacific Railway and Hinz , held that “one who has purchased a mining claim from the United States is estopped from denying that it is a mining claim.” Superior Coal Co., 98 Mont. at 514 , 41 P.2d at 20 .

2016It was interpreted again in Superior Coal Co. v. Musselshell County, 98 Mont. 501 , 41 P.2d 14 (1935), which, after discussing both Northern Pacific Railway and Hinz , held that “one who has purchased a mining claim from the United States is estopped from denying that it is a mining claim.” Superior Coal Co., 98 Mont. at 514 , 41 P.2d at 20 .

2014The patent was not limited to the mineral estate, but included “title to the surface included within the lines of the mining location, as well as to the land beneath the surface.” Deffeback, 115 U.S. at 406 , 6 S. Ct. at 101 ; accord Brown, 9 P.2d at 331 (“a mining claim gives surface as well as subsurface rights to all lands included within the lines of the location”); Gillmor, ¶ 17 (same). ¶27 Thus, the language in the Hansards’ mining patents stating that “[tjhis patent is issued subject to the provisions of the [SRHA]” simply acknowledges that, to the extent the mining claims were located

2014The patent was not limited to the mineral estate, but included “title to the surface included within the lines of the mining location, as well as to the land beneath the surface.” Deffeback, 115 U.S. at 406 , 6 S. Ct. at 101 ; accord Brown, 9 P.2d at 331 (“a mining claim gives surface as well as subsurface rights to all lands included within the lines of the location”); Gillmor, ¶ 17 (same). ¶27 Thus, the language in the Hansards’ mining patents stating that “[tjhis patent is issued subject to the provisions of the [SRHA]” simply acknowledges that, to the extent the mining claims were located

2008R.S. 2477 evinces an intent to offer the right-of-way for the construction of a public highway in a manner authorized by the laws of the state, not an intent to reserve for public use all roads depicted on mineral surveys. ¶39 Indeed, the notion of R.S. 2477 as some sort of implicit reservation was rejected long ago in Robertson v. Smith, 1 Mont. 410 (1871): The defendants [the county commissioners of Meagher County] insist that any miner who locates a mining claim does so subject to right of the public under [R.S. 2477] to construct a highway over the same.

2008Five years after R.S. 2477 was enacted, the Court in Robertson v. Smith, 1 Mont. 410 (1871), interpreted the provision as follows: [R.S. 2477] does not devote any particular portion of the public domain to a highway.

2008Grimes, Thompson on Real Property vol. 5B, § 2725, at 383 (1978). 3 California Coastal Com’n, 480 U.S. at 575-76 , 107 S. Ct. at 1422 ; Independence Mining, 105 F.3d at 506 .

2008Grimes, Thompson on Real Property vol. 5B, § 2725, at 383 (1978). 3 California Coastal Com’n, 480 U.S. at 575-76 , 107 S. Ct. at 1422 ; Independence Mining, 105 F.3d at 506 .

1985Section 50-704 further provided that “such affidavits . . . are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.” While the former section 50-704, R.C.M. was in effect this Court decided Coleman v. Curtis (1892), 12 Mont. 301 , 30 P. 266 , which held that complying with the statute was merely a means of preserving prima facie evidence that the assessment work requirements had been fulfilled.

1985Section 50-704 further provided that “such affidavits . . . are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.” While the former section 50-704, R.C.M. was in effect this Court decided Coleman v. Curtis (1892), 12 Mont. 301 , 30 P. 266 , which held that complying with the statute was merely a means of preserving prima facie evidence that the assessment work requirements had been fulfilled.

1980Ferris v. McNally (1912), 45 Mont. 20, 25 , 121 P. 889, 892 .

1980Ferris v. McNally (1912), 45 Mont. 20, 25 , 121 P. 889, 892 .

1969In U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Schreiner, 135 Mont. 312, 316 , 340 P.2d 548, 551 , this Court held: “A ‘mining claim’ is not restricted to a single mining location but may include as many adjoining locations as a miner can purchase and the ground covered by all will constitute a mining claim.” Nor do we find merit in appellant’s contention that the lien holders waived their lien rights due to the provision in the lease absolving the appellant property owner from all liens.

1969In U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Schreiner, 135 Mont. 312, 316 , 340 P.2d 548, 551 , this Court held: “A ‘mining claim’ is not restricted to a single mining location but may include as many adjoining locations as a miner can purchase and the ground covered by all will constitute a mining claim.” Nor do we find merit in appellant’s contention that the lien holders waived their lien rights due to the provision in the lease absolving the appellant property owner from all liens.

1965The leading case on export valuation of mining claims happens to be the old Montana decision of Montana Railway Company v. Warren, 6 Mont. 275 , 12 P. 641 ; affirmed on appeal: 137 U.S. 348 , 11 S.Ct. 96 , 34 L.Ed. 681 .

1965The leading case on export valuation of mining claims happens to be the old Montana decision of Montana Railway Company v. Warren, 6 Mont. 275 , 12 P. 641 ; affirmed on appeal: 137 U.S. 348 , 11 S.Ct. 96 , 34 L.Ed. 681 .

1965The leading case on export valuation of mining claims happens to be the old Montana decision of Montana Railway Company v. Warren, 6 Mont. 275 , 12 P. 641 ; affirmed on appeal: 137 U.S. 348 , 11 S.Ct. 96 , 34 L.Ed. 681 .

1965Wallace v. Jefferson Gas Co., 147 Pa. 205 , 23 A. 416 .

1965Wallace v. Jefferson Gas Co., 147 Pa. 205 , 23 A. 416 .

1954Fredricks v. Klauser, 52 Or 110, 116 , 96 P 679 .

1954Fredricks v. Klauser, 52 Or 110, 116 , 96 P 679 .

1946Sutter v. Scudder, 110 Mont. 390 , 103 Pac. (2d) 303 .

1946Sutter v. Scudder, 110 Mont. 390 , 103 Pac. (2d) 303 .

1941Cole v. District Court, 79 Mont. 1 , 254 Pac. 863 , this court held that lessees as well as owners may be made partners, but stressed the essential qualification of a partner in such an enterprise owning a possessory right in the property involved. *179 In Meister v. Farrow, 109 Mont. 1 , 92 Pac. (2d) 753, 758 , in considering whether certain operations by parties created a mining partnership, it was said: “The first requirement, then, is that the participants own shares or interests in a mining claim.

1941Cole v. District Court, 79 Mont. 1 , 254 Pac. 863 , this court held that lessees as well as owners may be made partners, but stressed the essential qualification of a partner in such an enterprise owning a possessory right in the property involved. *179 In Meister v. Farrow, 109 Mont. 1 , 92 Pac. (2d) 753, 758 , in considering whether certain operations by parties created a mining partnership, it was said: “The first requirement, then, is that the participants own shares or interests in a mining claim.