telling. 7 8 10 11 12 13 evidence. Amax did not disprove the paper locations with 1982 John Wood checked the area of the Sleeper Project on June 16, 1982, but he did not view A & R claims 5 and 6. Be 80 admitted on cross-examination. If he did area, enter the A he said that he would not have walked the entire northers boundary of AR claims 5 and 6, on which the location notices should have been posted. See NRS $17.090(1)(a). Wood was not even certain that he checked the ground in Section 28 at all. 1984 evidence disproves any ground location in February 1982 on all the A & R claims except claim 3. On August 4, 1984, John Wood did traverse the entirety of the A&R claims. Wood and his crew did not find any evidence of location or recent No location posts or notices were reasonably intense, crossing 14 work within A & R claims 5 and 6. 15 were found. The traverses 16 17 18 19 the claims at fifty feet intervals across flat terrain. The fact that the traverse was north-south leaves open the possibility that location posts along the northern boundaries of the A R claims 5 and 6 were missed. The court discounts this possibility 20 after considering Wood's testimony and believing it with respect to the detail of the search. In fact, Wood's field map of the does find a posted notice of location for A 6 R claim 3. This bolsters the integrity of the search of the A 6 R group and lets one infer reasonably that other such posts would have been discovered and noted had they been there. 1 1984 does not necessarily mean they were never before erected 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 by the Reynders and the Ashbys. But defendants have failed tc counter the negative evidence produced by Amax. Frai jo neve: said he conscientiously checked the ground for posted location notices prior to his October 1984 purchase. He did state that stakes were in the ground on the A&R claims in the spring of 1984. This generalized approach falls far short of contradicting the results of the contrastingly specific traverse. On its Sleeper claims 56, 58, 60, 77, 78 and 79, Amax is the senior locator. For the same reason, Amax is the senior locator or. its 1984 NA placers and 1984 Sleeper lode claims within the area 12 covered by the purported A & R claims 1, 2, and 4-6. That is, 13 Amax is the senior locator of the ground covered by Sleeper lodes 14 180-181, 187-193, and 200-204 and 15 16 " NA placers 131-150. Sleeper claims 180-181 and 187-188 were properly located on August 8, 1984. Certificates of location and maps were filed on October 17 16, 1984 (county) and October 23,- 1984 (BLM). Sleeper claims 189-193 and 200-204 were properly located on August 9, 1984. Certificates of location and maps were filed on October 16, 1984 (county) and October 23, 1984 (BLM). -NA-placers -131-150 were 18 19 20 25 properly located on August 3, 1984. See RS 517.090. Certificates of location and maps were filed on October 15, 1984 (county) and October 23, 1984 (BLM). See 43 U.S.C. § 1744; NRS 517.100-110. Amax disproved any senior locations of A R claims 1, 2 and 4-6 with the same 1984 evidence that disproved seniority 26 of A &R claims 5 and 6. Sleeper claims 180-181 and 187-188 3 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 and NA placers 139-146 lie within the area of purported A claims 5 and 6. The proof concerning Wood's 1984 finding of a February 25, 1981 location post sets A & R claim 3 apart. Sleeper load claims 194-198 and 205-209 and NA placers 151-154 fall within A&R 3. The 1981 date of the location notice found by Wood in his August 4, 1984 traverse is puzzling in light of the 1982 date on record with BLM and Humboldt County. The contradiction casts doubt on any 1982 location of A & R claim 3. We can also dispose of Roland Fraijo's claim to A R 3 and add to the disposition of A&-R-1, -2-and 4-6 on legal grounds. Fraijo obtained his interest in the A&R claims through an October 20, 1984 quitclaim deed which he recorded on February 20, 1985. Any 80-acre location enjoyed by the association of two Reynders and two Ashbys could not be purchased by the individual Fraijo. law limits individual locations to Federal 20 acres per claim.. 30 U.S.c. $ 35. The individual cannot bypass this limitation by obtaining a conveyance from an association. U.S. v. Ickes, 98 F.2d 271, 278-79 (D.C.Cir. 1938); Nome and Sinook Co. v. Snyder, 187 Fed. 385 (9th Cir. 1911); United States v. Havenberg, 9 IBLA 77 (1973). Fraijo himself must have realized 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 On November 9, 1985, he relocated the claims with four other individuals. Fraijo has not relied 24 on this relocation, however. (And see 9/85 Preliminary Injunction 25 26 P. 4. par. 3). His claims in this case are based on what he obtained in October of 1984, which was no more than an unspecified 1 2 3 4 20 acres. Amax is the efore the senior locator on its Sleepe claims 194-198 and 205-209 and NA placers 151-154. The GR claims in dispute were located by Ross Mosher. Sr. and his wife, Gloria, in 1981. Ross Mosher, Jr. and Susai 5 Mosher rely оп these locations through the February 9, 198: 6 quitclaim deed to them from Ross Mosher, Sr. and Gloria Mosher, 1983. Ross Mosher, Sr. testified that hi recorded March 7 8 9 of location on claims 1-20 i location and maps filed on Jul; 1981 (BLM) for claims 3 and 11 indicate a July 6, 1981 -date of location. Ross Mosher, Sr 12 testified that he staked GR claims 21-24 in September 1981 Notices of location filed on September 21, 1981 (county) indicat 13 14 16 a location date of September 20, 1981. The claims 21-24 wer relocated on December 20, 1981, as testified to by Mosher an 16 evidenced by notice of location filed on December 21, -198: (county). Certificates and maps of the December 20, 1981 location were filed on February 16, 1982 (county and BLM). 17 18 By late August of 1982, Amax had learned of these Gl locations through Gary Bennett's record search. On August 4. 1984, John Wood and his crew did not traverse the GR claims with the same intensity as he had that day on the A&R group. Instead. 23 these claims were "examined on foot and by driving roads and 22 24 trails." (Ex. 11). On August 3 and 4, 1984, Amax located place: 25 26 claims NA 103-113 and on August 8 and 9, 1984, it located Sleepe: lode claims 182, 189 and 200. These lode and placer location! 6 7 10 11 12 13 were certificated along with maps on October 15 (placer-county and 16 (lode-county), 1984, and or. October 23, 1984 (BLM). The Moshers are the senior locators with respect t the ground represented by the GR disputed area. Seeking to defeat this seniority, Amax argues almost timidly that the relocation of the GR claims 21-24 in December 1981 somehow evinces an intent to fraudulently withhold public land from rival prospectors. Mosher, Sr. explained he could not afford to certificate these claims within the statutory 90-day period after the September 20, 1981 location date. The contention of defendants that the Amax practice of staking both lode and placer claims evidences abandonment is unfounded in this case. The court finds such practices if these particular circumstances did 15 addition, until discovery, there appears to be no reason to linif not show abandonment. If 14 16 17 the prospector in this uncertain geologic area to one particulat type of claim. The nature of the discovery, when made, might require a choice. The fact of location of claims alone is of no value to the parties. A mineral discovery upon a claim is the sing 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 of upon the ground may precede discovery or discovery may precede limits of mineral not the claim located. upon one claim in and of itself will support rights to another claim or group claims, even though contiguous. To |