other purpose, such land must be appropriated under the laws applicable to lodes.

This we understand to be the rule now recognized by the courts and the land department as announced in the cases heretofore cited.36

§ 327. "Location" and "mining claim" defined."Location" and "mining claim" may not always or necessarily mean the same thing. The supreme court of the United States has said that a mining claim is a parcel of land containing precious metal in its soil or rock.37

A location is the act of appropriating such parcel according to certain established rules. The "location" in time became among the miners synonymous with the "mining claim" originally appropriated. If the miner has only the ground covered by one location,

36 The rule, however, does not apply to rock salt occurring in veins. See post, § 513.

37 St. Louis Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, 648, 26 L. ed. 875. The use of the term "precious metal" in this connection is manifestly of no controlling importance. The Revised Statutes enumerate a number of metals which are in no sense "precious," and, as such statutes are interpreted, they include a great variety of substances which are not metallic.

his "mining claim" and his "location" are identical, and the two designations may be indiscriminately used to denote the same thing. But if by purchase he acquires other adjoining "locations," and adds them to his own, then the term "mining claim" is frequently used colloquially to describe the ground embraced by all the locations.38

Judge Hillyer defined a "mining claim" to be that portion of the public mineral lands which the miner for mining purposes takes up and holds in accordance with the mining laws."

As generally or colloquially used, the term "mining claim" has no reference to the different stages in the acquisition of the government title. It may include all mines contiguous to each other and held under one ownership, whether patented or unpatented, if acquired under the mining laws, 10 or which is claimed under the mining laws, although the location may not as yet have been perfected; e. g., oil placer in process of development."1

40

Strictly speaking, "location" is the act or series of acts by which the right of exclusive possession of mineral veins and the surface of mineral lands is vested in the locators."

42

38 St. Louis Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, 648, 26 L. ed. 875, 11 Morr. Min. Rep. 673; McFeters v. Pierson, 15 Colo. 201, 22 Am. St. Rep. 388, 24 Pac. 1076. See, also, N. P. R. R. Co. v. Sanders, 49 Fed. 129, 135, 1 C. C. A. 192; In re Mackie, 5 L. D. 199.

39 Mt. Diablo M. & M. Co. v. Callison, 5 Saw. 439, Fed. Cas. No. 9886, Morr. Min. Rep. 616.

40 Bewick v. Muir, 83 Cal. 368, 372, 23 Pac. 389, 390.

41 Berentz v. Belmont Oil Co., 148 Cal. 577, 113 Am. St. Rep. 308, 84 Pac. 47, 48. See, also, Uinta T. M. & T. Co. v. Ajax G. M. Co., 141 Fed. 563, 73 C. C. A. 35.

42 Creede & Cripple Creek M. & M. Co. v. Uinta M. T. Co., 196 U. S. 337, 346, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 266, 49 L. ed. 501.

Where these terms are used in statutes, federal or state, their true meaning is to be determined from a consideration of the entire context, which involves, of course, the general scope and character of the legislation. A few illustrations from the adjudicated cases will serve to demonstrate this.

As was said by the supreme court of the United States,

That which is located is called in section twentythree hundred and twenty of the Revised Statutes and elsewhere a "claim," or "mining claim." Indeed, the words "claim" and "location" are used interchangeably."

As used in section twenty-three hundred and twentyfour of the Revised Statutes, requiring a certain amount of work to be done annually upon "each claim," and in section twenty-three hundred and twenty-five prescribing the amount of labor or improvements required as a condition precedent to the issuance of a patent, the word "claim" means “location.''44

As used in the revenue acts of the different states and territories, providing for the taxation or exemption from taxation of property, the term "mining claim" does not include patented mines.“

"Location" is the inception of the miner's title.

A statute of California provides that "every person who performs labor upon any 'mining claim' has a lien upon the same.

9946

48 Del Monte M. & M. Co. v. Last Chance M. Co., 171 U. S. 55, 74, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 895, 43 L. ed. 72, 19 Morr. Min. Rep. 370.

44 Opinion of Assistant Attorney-General Van Devanter, 27 L. D. 91. Post, §§ 628, 673.

45 Salisbury v. Lane, 7 Idaho, 370, 63 Pac. 383; Waller v. Hughes, 2 Ariz. 114, 11 Pac. 122.

46 Cal. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1183, 1192.

In construing this law, the supreme court of that state has held that the lien extends to the whole claim," but by such a "claim" was meant a portion of the public lands to which the right of enjoyment has been asserted under the mining laws; that a Mexican grant containing eleven hundred and nine acres, and another three hundred and fourteen acres, upon which mining was conducted, the whole being known as the Guadalupe mine, was not a "mining claim," and no lien could be filed thereon extending over the entire area.

Nor is a tract of one hundred and sixty acres of land, held under agricultural patent, upon which parties were engaged in mining, such a "claim" as is lienable as a mining claim."

But a consolidation of numerous mining locations, held and operated under one ownership, the aggregation being designated by a general name, such as the "Red Cloud mine," is a "mining claim," and the whole claim is lienable.50

As a mine owner may perform work on one of a group of claims and thus hold the entire group, so should a lien claimant be entitled to embrace the entire group in his lien."1

47 Helm v. Chapman, 66 Cal. 291, 5 Pac. 352.

48 Williams v. Santa Clara Min. Assn., 66 Cal. 193, 5 Pac. 85; U. S. Min. Dec. 136, 142; Week's Min. Lands, 118. As to definition under the lien laws, see Escott v. Crescent City Coal & Navigation Co., 56 Or. 190, 106 Pac. 452, 453, where all the cases are reviewed.

49 Morse v. De Ardo, 107 Cal. 622, 40 Pac. 1018.

50 Tredinnick v. Red Cloud M. Co., 72 Cal. 78, 84, 13 Pac. 152. See, also, Malone v. Big Flat G. M. Co., 76 Cal. 583, 18 Pac. 772; Hamilton v. Delhi M. Co., 118 Cal. 148, 50 Pac. 378; Salt Lake Hardware Co. v. Chainman M. Co., 137 Fed. 632, 642; Phillips v. Salmon River M. & D. Co., 9 Idaho, 149, 72 Pac. 886; Thompson v. Wise Boy M. & M. Co., 9 Idaho, 363, 74 Pac. 958; Idaho M. & M. Co. v. Davis, 123 Fed. 396, 399, 59 C. C. A. 200.

51 McIntyre v. Montana Gold Mt. M. Co., 41 Mont. 87, 137 Am. St. Rep. 701, 108 Pac. 353.

While the law prescribes a limitation as to the size of a location, there is no limitation to the number of claims one person may hold by purchase.52

A single location is a "claim," as that term is used in the Revised Statutes. But, as we have heretofore seen, "claim" may, colloquially speaking, embrace a number of locations.

§ 328. Acts necessary to constitute a valid lode location under the Revised Statutes, in the absence of supplemental state legislation and local district rules. It is not necessary that any supplemental state legislation or local district regulations should exist. Where they do not exist, a location may be perfected by following the requirements of the federal law. The acts to be performed in the absence of state or district regulations are few and simple. "The intricacies are those found by the courts of the states and territories wherein mineral lands are situated arising out of complex state or territorial legislation supplementing the federal laws. ''58

The requisites of such location are:

(1) The discovery:

(2) The marking of the location on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced."*

52 St. Louis Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, 648, 26 L. ed. 875, 11 Morr. Min. Rep. 673; Malone v. Big Flat G. M. Co., 76 Cal. 578, 583, 18 Pac. 772.

53 Sanders v. Noble, 22 Mont. 110, 55 Pac. 1037, 1039, 19 Morr. Min. Rep. 650; Upton v. Larkin, 7 Mont. 449, 17 Pac. 728, 730, 15 Morr. Min. Rep. 404.

54 Upton v. Larkin, 7 Mont. 449, 17 Pac. 728, 729, 15 Morr. Min. Rep. 404; Sanders v. Noble, 22 Mont. 110, 55 Pac. 1037, 1039, 19 Morr. Min. Rep. 650; Erwin v. Perego, 93 Fed. 608, 610, 35 C. C. A. 482; Treasury Tunnel M. & R. Co. v. Boss, 32 Colo. 27, 105 Am. St. Rep. 60, 74 Pac. 888, 889; Daggett v. Yreka M. & M. Co., 149 Cal. 357, 86 Pac. 968, 969; Walton v. Wild Goose M. & T. Co., 123 Fed. 209, 216,