ON THE

AMERICAN LAW RELATING TO MINES
AND MINERAL LANDS

WITHIN THE

PUBLIC LAND STATES AND TERRITORIES

AND

GOVERNING THE ACQUISITION AND ENJOYMENT
OF MINING RIGHTS IN LANDS OF
THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

BY

CURTIS H. LINDLEY

Of the San Francisco Bar

THIRD EDITION

IN THREE VOLUMES

VOLUME III

"I hold every man a debtor to his profession; from the
which, as men of course do seek to receive countenance and
profit, so ought they of duty to endeavor themselves, by way
of amends, to be a help and ornament thereto."

Bacon's Tracts.

"Et opus desperatum, quasi per medium profundum

euntes, cœlesti favore jam adimplevin‹us.”

-From Dedication of Justinian's Institutes.

SAN FRANCISCO
BANCROFT-WHITNEY COMPANY

§ 677. Posting of the notice and copy of the plat on the claim. As a condition precedent to the filing of an application for patent to a lode claim, the claimant is

(1687)

required to post a copy of the plat of the survey in a conspicuous place upon the claim,' together with a notice of his intention to apply for a patent therefor, which notice must state the date of posting, the name of the claimant, the name of the claim, the number of the survey, the mining district, and county,' and the names of adjoining and conflicting claims as shown by the plat of survey, or the number of the survey of such conflicting claims.*

The notice should contain a description of the claim in the form of a condensed transcript of the field-notes. It should be practically a counterpart of the notice which is to be published and posted in the office of the register of the land office. There is no necessity for describing the lode line, if there is one on the plat, or for embodying in the notice the entire field-notes, calls for all bearing objects, topography, and other data found in the surveyor's report; but it should clearly follow, by course and distance, the exterior lines, and describe the course and length of the connecting line by which the mineral survey is "tied" to the public surveys, or to a United States mineral monument if

1 Rev. Stats., § 2325; 17 Stat. 92; Comp. Stats. 1901, p. 1429; 5 Fed. Stats. Ann. 31; De Long v. Hill, 9 Copp's L. O. 114; Min. Reg., par. 39, Appendix.

2 A mistake in the name of the county-i. e., designating the wrong one-would invalidate the notice. Wright v. Sioux Cons. M. Co., 29 L. D. 154; S. C., on review, 29 L. D. 289.

8 Gen. Min. Reg., par. 39, Appendix; In re Ellison, 29 L. D. 250. Neilson v. Champagne M. & M. Co., 29 L. D. 491.

Under prior regulations, the notice was required to state, in addition to the foregoing, whether or not the location is of record and, if so, where the record may be found, the number of feet claimed along the vein and the presumed direction thereof, and the name or names of all adjoining and conflicting claims, whether surveyed or unsurveyed. Gowdy v. Kismet G. M. Co., 24 L. D. 191; 25 L. D. 216; Gowdy v. Connell, 27 L. D. 56; S. C., on review, 28 L. D. 240.

5 Beik v. Nickerson, 29 L. D. 662.

the lands in the vicinity are unsurveyed. A failure to observe this important requirement will vitiate the subsequent proceedings and necessitate a commencement de novo. In the notice each claim in a group should be tied to a mineral monument or government corner.

Neither the posted nor published notice is required to contain any words of citation or to designate the time within which adverse action must be taken."

The posting of this notice on the claim and in the register's office and its subsequent publication are jurisdictional matters, any serious irregularity in which may jeopardize, if not wholly vitiate, the subsequent proceedings. The posted and published notices constitute "process" in this procedure under the mining laws. If any one of the three notices is insufficient, they are all rendered valueless."

In determining the sufficiency of these notices they must be taken as a whole, and when so considered if the situation of the applicant's claim on the ground is designated with substantial accuracy, the notice must be held sufficient.10

• Nil Desperandum Placer, 10 L. D. 198; Tennessee Lode, 7 L. D. 392; Emperor Wilhelm Lode, 5 L. D. 685; Hoffman v. Venard, 14 L. D. 45; Broad Ax Lode, 22 L. D. 244; Sulphur Springs Quicksilver Mine, 22 L. D. 715; Hallett and Hamburg Lodes, 27 L. D. 104; In re Wax, 29 L. D. 592; Alice Lode, 30 L. D. 481. See, ante, § 671, for discussion of the effect of an erroneous tie line. Also see In re Peck, 34 L. D. 682.

Juno et al. Lode Claims, 37 L. D. 365.

Ta Draper v. Wells, 25 L. D. 550; Davidson v. Eliza G. M. Co., 28 L. D. 550.

8 Stock Oil Co., 40 L. D. 198, 203. They are in effect a summons to all adverse claimants. Hesley v. Rupp, 37 Colo. 25, 87 Pac. 1015, 1016. 9 Gross v. Hughes, 29 L. D. 467.

10 Hallett and Hamburg Lodes, 27 L. D. 104; Gowdy v. Connell, 28 L. D. 240; Opie v. Auburn G. M. & M. Co., 29 L. D. 230; Suburban G. M. Co. v. Gibberd, 29 L. D. 558; Neilson v Champagne M. & M. Co., 29 L. D. 491; Reed v. Bowron, 32 L. D. 383.