U.S. Code » Title 30 » Chapter CHAPTER 2— MINERAL LANDS AND REGULATIONS IN GENERAL

30 U.S.C. § 36

Subdivisions of 10-acre tracts; maximum of placer locations; homestead claims of agricultural lands; sale of improvements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 30 CasesGoogle Scholar

Legal subdivisions of forty acres may be subdivided into ten-acre tracts; and two or more persons, or associations of persons, having contiguous claims of any size, although such claims may be less than ten acres each, may make joint entry thereof; but no location of a placer claim, made after the 9th day of July 1870, shall exceed one hundred and sixty acres for any one person or association of persons, which location shall conform to the United States surveys; and nothing in this section contained shall defeat or impair any bona fide homestead claim upon agricultural lands, or authorize the sale of the improvements of any bona fide settler to any purchaser.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1908–2014 · leading case: United States ex rel. United States Borax Co. v. Ickes, 98 F.2d 271 (D.C. Cir. 1938).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States ex rel. United States Borax Co. v. Ickes, 98 F.2d 271 (D.C. Cir. 1938). · cites it 3× “§ 2330, 30 U.S.C.A. § 36 , “no location of a placer-claim .”
Robert B. Lara v. Sec'y of the Interior of the United States, 820 F.2d 1535 (9th Cir. 1987). “Lara contends that the ten-acre rule applies only to an association’s placer claim, which may be as large as 160 acres, 30 U.S.C. § 36 , and only in patent proceedings.”
Rundle v. Repub. Cement Corp., 341 P.2d 226 (Ariz. 1959). · cites it 2× “" ( 30 U.S.C.A. § 36 .) (Emphasis supplied.) The facts bearing on the issue — of which, unfortunately, the majority opinion fails to take note — are gained chiefly from documentary evidence and the testimony of Burney C.”
Multiple Use, Inc. v. Morton, 353 F. Supp. 184 (D. Ariz. 1972). · cites it 2× “§ 2330 (1878), 30 U.S.C. § 36 (1934), 30 U.S.C.A. § 36 .”
Rooney v. Barnette, 200 F. 700 (9th Cir. 1912). “§§ 2330, 2331 ( 30 U.S.C.A. §§ 36 , 35 and note). There may be a less number than eight; but, where that is the case, there must also be a less quantity of ground located, corresponding to the equivalent of a less number of individual locations.”
Laden v. Andrus, 595 F.2d 482 (9th Cir. 1979). · cites it 2× “Three issues are presented on appeal: First, did the district court err by upholding the Department of Interior’s (DOI) determination that the land in question was “mineral” in character; second, did the district court err by upholding the DOI’s determination that appellants’…”
Houck v. Jose, 72 F. Supp. 6 (S.D. Cal. 1947). “([ 30 U.S.C.A. § 36 ], Comp.St.1916, § 4629) This is a direct and positive limitation of the amount of mining ground any one claimant may appropriate individually or as a member of an association in any one claim, and he cannot evade the law by the use of the names of his…”
Cook v. Klonos, 164 F. 529 (9th Cir. 1908). “ng six absent locators, entered upon the premises peaceably and without force or fraud, or in any surreptitious or clandestine manner, and that they have since remained in peaceable possession of the ground; that on March 23 and 24, 1905, they located the ground as an…”
Hall v. McKinnon, 193 F. 572 (9th Cir. 1911). “But an association of persons may make a location of a tract which shall embrace as many individual claims of 20 acres each as there are individuals in the association, not to exceed eight locators making a location aggregating 160 acres.”
Lara v. Sec'y of Interior of United States, 642 F. Supp. 458 (D. Or. 1986). “30 U.S.C. § 36 . An individual claim is held by an individual, and not in association with anyone else.”
Stenfjeld v. Espe, 171 F. 825 (9th Cir. 1909). “§ 2330 ( 30 U.S.C.A. § 36 ), provides that: “Two or more persons or associations of persons having contiguous claims of any size, although such claims may be less than ten acres each, may make joint entry thereof; but no location of a placer claim made after the ninth day of…”
Saltzman v. United States, No. 1:13-cv-01014 (Fed. Cl. Aug. 15, 2014). “These "association placer claims" may then be transferred to a smaller number of mining claimants, provided that there is a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit at the time of the transfer.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.