Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

their intention to become such, had no rights to be protected by the act of 1872.

Anthony v. Jillson, 83, 296 (1890). One who is not a citizen of the United States, and has not declared his intention to become such, cannot make a valid location of public mineral land. So held of one who filed his declaration of intention the day after he attempted to make a location.

Persons claiming right to a patent under Rev. Stats. 2,332, on ground of possession, must show citizenship.

Jackson v. Dines, 13, 90 (1889). In an action against a Colorado. railroad company for damages for taking part of a mining claim, a complaint, showing plaintiff's possession and defendant's entry without permission and injury to the soil and timber, is sufficient. In such an action averment of citizenship by plaintiff is unnecessary, nor is he bound to show this fact unless its want is objected to by the defendant at such time and in such a way as to give him an opportunity to meet the objection.

Thomas v. Chisholm, 13, 105 (1889). A corporation organized under the laws of the United States, or of some State or Territory, may make a valid location of a mining claim, provided the members are all citizens of the United States, and severally qualified to make a location. In a proceeding on an adverse claim, a party basing his title upon a location by a corporation must allege and prove the organization of the corporation and the qualification of its members. McKinley v. Wheeler (supra) followed.

Lee v. Justice M. Co., 29 Pac. 1020 (1892). Where a location is invalid because the locator is an alien, it does not acquire validity by conveyance to a citizen. The conveyance here was without consideration, and collusive.1 Bohanon v. Howe, 2, 417; 17 Pac. 583 (1888). In an

Idaho. action for trespass upon mining ground where the legal title

is in the United States, and the plaintiff's right is founded on a possessory title, he must allege and prove his citizenship.

Territory v. Lee, 2, 124 (1874). A mining claim, hav

Montana. ing been properly located, may be conveyed to and held by

an alien, and the act of the territorial legislature "to provide for the forfeiture to the Territory of placer mines held by aliens," is unauthorized either by the act of Congress or by the Organic Act of the Territory.

Tibbitts v. Ah Tong, 4, 536 (1883). An alien cannot hold a mining claim purchased by him from the locator. Rev. Stats. 2319 opens the unappropriated mineral lands of the public domain to occupation and purchase by citizens only. An alien is thereunder incompetent to purchase those lands of the government. As location is the initial step to purchase, giving only a possessory title, which becomes complete upon the issuance of the patent, no one can hold a location who is incompetent to complete that title.2

Garfield M. & M. Co. v. Hammer, 6, 53 (1886), affirmed in 130 U. S. 291. The right to the possession of a mining claim is derived 1 This case has been reversed on an- 2 Manuel v. Wulff, supra, to the conother point. trary.

only from a valid location; consequently, if there be no location, there can be no possession under it. In an action to quiet title to a mining claim, where plaintiff's ownership and right of possession are put in issue, he must show affirmatively that he has complied fully with all the requirements of the act of Congress and the local rules and regulations. relative to the location of mining claims, and has made, therefore, a valid location. An instruction to the contrary is not a prejudicial error, if the defendant did not introduce any evidence tending to invalidate plaintiff's location, but relied on an alleged forfeiture. In the absence of evidence, locators will be presumed to be citizens or to have declared their intention to become such.

Princeton M. Co. v. First Nat. Bank of Butte, 7, 530 (1888). A corporation may hold title to mineral land, though one of its stockholders (owning fifty-five per cent of the stock) be an alien, the corporation not having been the locator, but having acquired title subsequent to location.

Golden Fleece G. & S. M. Co. v. Cable Consolidated G. &

Nevada. S. M. Co., 12, 312 (1877). Where the first claimant who takes up a claim is not a citizen, or has forfeited his right by non-compliance with mining regulations, or abandons his claim, the ground is open to relocation by any citizen of the United States.

One of the five locators of a mining claim, title to which had passed into the defendant, on cross-examination testified that he was not a citizen, and had never declared his intention of becoming such, whereupon the court decided his location void, and excluded all evidence in regard to it. Held, error. Witness's admissions were not binding on his grantees, and his citizenship was a question for the jury to decide. Where one of several locators is not a citizen, in the absence of knowledge of the fact on the part of his co-locators, the whole location is not void, but only the claim of the alien.

Sever v. Gregovich, 16, 325 (1881). A citizen and an alien made a joint location, and the alien subsequently was naturalized. After this the citizen relocated the same ground. He was held to be estopped from denying the rights of his original co-locator or of those deriving title from him.

Gorman M. Co. v. Alexander, 2, 557 (1892). A minSouth Dakota. ing claim was located by citizens in 1877. In 1883 one of these conveyed his interest to an alien, who subsequently conveyed to plaintiff, a corporation competent to locate, acquire, and hold a mining claim. As against one seeking to locate the same ground subsequent to the last conveyance, plaintiff's title was good.

LAND OFFICE DECISIONS.

Where locators are not applicants, it will be presumed they were citizens, unless allegations to the contrary are made before patent issues. The objection comes too late after patent. Wandering Boy, Copp, 169 (1875).

A foreign corporation purchasing a patent issued to citizens of the United States, takes all the right and is entitled to all the privileges that would have accrued to the original patentees had they retained their interest in the mine. Rev. Stats. 2326; Copp, 177 (1875).

A portion of a mining claim sold to an alien cannot be patented while such owner is an alien; but on his declaration of intention to become a citizen, his right dates back to his purchase, and he may thereupon secure patent for his claim. Copp, 192 (1876).

An English corporation conveyed a claim to a citizen of the United States, in trust, that he might obtain a patent, and he agreed to reconvey upon securing the receiver's receipt. He had no further interest therein. He was held to be merely the agent of the corporation, which, incompetent to secure title by proceedings under the statute, could not accomplish that end by indirection by means of an agent. Capricorn Placer, 10 L. D. 641 (1890).

A citizen of the United States, acting in the interest of a foreign corporation, cannot make a mineral entry for the benefit of such corporation. Hook v. Latham, 11 L. D. 425 (1890).

A mineral entry made by an alien is not void but voidable, and while of record, the land covered thereby is segregated from the public domain. A protestant who makes a mineral location on land thus segregated acquires no interest thereby, as against the government or the entrymen, that will entitle him to be heard on appeal. Leary v. Manuel, 12 L. D. 345 (1891).

B. Other Qualifications of Locators.

The locators of a mining claim must be persons or associations of persons.

These may be women or minors. In the case of coal lands, however, minors cannot make entry.

Thompson v. Spray, 72, 528 (1887). Minors who are California. citizens may locate mining claims under Rev. Stats. 2319. The entryman of coal lands, however, under Rev. Stats. 2347 must be over twenty-one years of age.

LAND OFFICE DECISIONS.

[ocr errors]

A claim could not be located for the "Miners' Relief and Territorial Poor Fund," as it was neither a person nor an association of persons, was without legal existence, and powerless and incapacitated to " occupy and improve a claim, or perform those acts of ownership or possession required of miners, as conditions essential to the holding of claims, or of proceeding to make payment to the government and obtain patent. Terrible v. Gunboat, Copp, 80 (1871).

Women may locate and hold mining claims. Copp, 221 (1877).1 The fact that the locator of a mining claim is a minor does not render the location invalid. Copp, 266 (1880).

C. Location by Agent or Partner.

A mining claim may be located by one person for another. Such a location may be made either in the name of the agent or 1 See Bogart v. Daniels, 18 L. D. 528.

of the principal. In the former case, if the relation of agency is established, the claim is held by the agent in trust for his principal, and a conveyance may be enforced. So also, when the partnership relation exists, the location is for the benefit of the partners, all of whom have an interest therein. But the relation must exist at the time of the discovery and location. Where the location is made by one in the name of another, either alone or jointly with his own, the interest of the absent locator is valid, provided he either previously authorized or subsequently ratified the location. The ratification of the location when made relates to the date of the location, and cuts out adverse intervening rights. When such location is made, the interest of the principal becomes vested, and the agent cannot by an act or declaration of his divest or alter that interest even before ratification, although the former had not yet acquired knowledge of the location.

The Statute of Frauds has no application to this class of cases. The evidences of location are not a means of transferring or vesting title, but a mode of showing that the locator has availed himself of the government's concession to occupy and use the land.

Where the agency is created for the purpose of exceeding the limit of ground which the principal may hold, a trust founded thereon will not be enforced.

Johnstone v. Robinson, 16 Fed. 903 (1881), C. C. United States. D. Colo. The partnership relation or association between parties who may be engaged in prosecuting explorations on the public lands for mines, must exist at the time of the alleged discovery and location, in order to give to the parties associated an interest in the property. If it does not then exist, so that the person acting in the field, making the location and the discovery, can be said to be acting for the others as well as himself, no interest can be acquired by those who are not personally present.

Fuller v. Harris, 29 Fed. 814 (1887), C. C. D. Alaska. At the time of the location of a quartz mining claim by the employees of the claimant, there were no local rules of the mining district requiring a record of the location. Subsequently the claim was relocated by the owner so as to conform to the requirements of the act of Congress. Held, that as there was a valid location of the claim by the employer through his employees, his title dated back to the first location.

One who was employed by another to prospect for and locate mining claims, in his receipt for wages received for such work, certified that his employer's claim was the first one located in the neighborhood, and therefore his employer procured laborers, and expended money

and labor in developing the mine. Held, that the employee was estopped from setting up a claim in himself.

Hunt v. Patchin, 35 Fed. 816 (1888), C. C. D. Nev. The owners in common of mining claims, owing to difficulty in raising money to pay the taxes and to do the labor required by statute, to prevent a forfeiture of the claims, after extensive correspondence between complainant, who was the principal owner, and defendant, who was manager of the mines, determined to allow a forfeiture, and let defendant immediately relocate the claims in new names. This he did on July 1, 1883, in his own name alone, after writing for advice to complainant, who prepared and sent him a form of notice in his name as locator. Held, that a trust attached to defendant's title in favor of his associates. Book v. Justice M. Co., 58 Fed. 107 (1893), C. C. D. Nev. "When a location is made by one person in his own name, at the expense of, for the benefit and on behalf of another person, such other person is certainly entitled to the ground so located," and is entitled to the benefit of work done thereon by the locator. There is no law prohibiting a corporation formed under the laws of another State from acquiring a mining claim in this way.

Arizona.

An agreement to locate a mining claim for the benefit of another need not be in writing. The Statute of Frauds has no application. Rush v. French, 1, 99 (1874). L. and F., who had been prospecting together, parted company with an agreement that if either made a discovery he would locate the other with him. F. then furnished M. supplies to enable him to prospect, and M. making a discovery, located for himself and others, including L. Then at F.'s request M. made a further location on the same lode in L.'s

name.

In ejectment by a subsequent locator, it was error for the court to refuse to charge that the subsequent ratification by L. of the location gave it the same effect as if made by himself, and to qualify this by adding, "unless a valid location by some other person had, in the interval between the location and ratification, been made and forfeited."

When a location is made for an absent locator, whether with or without his authority or knowledge, whatever rights are given to him by such location vest in him at once, and can only be divested by his own acts or omissions, or by operation of law. It is not necessary that authority should exist or ratification take place before other valid claims intervene.

The Statute of Frauds has no application to this case. "This writing is to be signed by the party creating the estate, or by some one having written authority to do so. The party who locates a mine obtains an estate therein by such an act, but it is not he who creates that estate."

A location made by one in the name of another, with the purpose of having the latter convey to him without consideration the whole or a part of said claim, the former having already located in his own name all the ground that he lawfully could, is not void where the latter did not know of the purpose of the location. Whether it would be void under other circumstances not decided.

« ForrigeFortsett »