Where the same person, association, or corporation is in possession of a placer claim, and also a vein or lode included within the boundaries thereof, application shall be made for a patent for the placer claim, with the statement that it includes such vein or lode, and in such case a patent shall issue for the placer claim, subject to the provisions of sections 21, 22 to 24, 26 to 28, 29, 30, 33 to 48, 50 to 52, 71 to 76 of this title and section 661 of title 43, including such vein or lode, upon the payment of $5 per acre for such vein or lode claim, and twenty-five feet of surface on each side thereof. The remainder of the placer claim, or any placer claim not embracing any vein or lode claim, shall be paid for at the rate of $2.50 per acre, together with all costs of proceedings; and where a vein or lode, such as is described in section 23 of this title, is known to exist within the boundaries of a placer claim, an application for a patent for such placer claim which does not include an application for the vein or lode claim shall be construed as a conclusive declaration that the claimant of the placer claim has no right of possession of the vein or lode claim; but where the existence of a vein or lode in a placer claim is not known, a patent for the placer claim shall convey all valuable mineral and other deposits within the boundaries thereof.
Notes of Decisions
Andrus v. Shell Oil Co., 446 U.S. 657 (1980).
“30 U. S. C. § 37 . There is no deadline within which a locator must file for patent, though to satisfy the discovery requirement the claimant must show the existence of "valuable mineral deposits" both at the time of location and at the time of determination.”
Marathon Oil Co. v. Lujan, 751 F. Supp. 1454 (D. Colo. 1990).
“The court declines to explore that issue in great detail, but plaintiffs' argument is noteworthy. 19 . In a March 18, 1987 letter to Hon.”
Bowen v. Sil-Flo Corp., 451 P.2d 626 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 2× “2d 281 (1939); and (3) whether Bowen’s application for patent to the placer claims, in which he made no mention of Sil-Flo’s lode claims in the area, constituted “ * * * a conclusive declaration * * * ” that he had no right of possession as to these lode claims under 30 U.S.C.A.…”
Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp., 423 P.2d 104 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1967).
· cites it 2× “50 per acre, together with all costs of proceedings ; and where a vein or lode, such as is described in section 23 of this title, is known to exist within the boundaries of a placer claim, an application for a patent for such placer claim which does not include an application…”
Bowen v. Chemi-Cote Perlite Corp., 432 P.2d 435 (Ariz. 1967).
“It reads as follows: 30 U.S.C.A. § 37 : “Where the same person, association, or corporation is in possession of a placer *429 claim, and also a vein or lode included within the boundaries thereof, application shall be made for a patent for the placer claim, with the statement…”
Tags Realty, LLC v. Runkle, 2015 MT 166 (Mont. 2015).
“For the foregoing reasons, the District Court erred by granting summary judgment on an issue never raised, addressed, or conceded by the parties.”
Stanton v. WEBER, 341 P.2d 1078 (Or. 1959).
“a perfected placer location does not confer the right to the possession of veins, or lodes, which may be found to exist within the placer limits at any time prior to filing an application for a placer patent, and such lodes may be appropriated by the placer claimant, or by…”
Crofoot v. Hill, 326 P.2d 417 (Nev. 1958).
“1433) [ 30 U.S.C.A. § 37 ]. A mere location of an alleged vein or lode is not sufficient to prove that a vein or lode was known to exist.”
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.