48 the location void, the lines having been made | end lines. Iron Silver M. Co. v. Cheesman, 2 McCrary, 191; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 552. parallel before the intervention of adverse rights. Doe v. Waterloo M. Co., 54 Fed. Rep. 935; Doe v. Sanger, 83 Cal. 203; 23 Pac. Rep. 365. 553. The provisions of the statute requiring the end lines of a claim to be parallel is merely directory, and no consequence is attached to a deviation. Eureka Cons. M. Co. v. Richmond M. Co., 4 Sawy. 302; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 578; Horswell v. Ruiz, 67 Cal. 111; 7 Pac. Rep. 197; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 488. 554. The end lines of a lode claim must be substantially parallel. Cheesman v. Shreeve, 40 Fed. Rep. 787. 555. The validity of the location is not affected by a slight divergence of the end lines. Doe v. Sanger, 83 Cal. 203; 23 Pac. Rep. 365. 556. The end lines of a lode claim as surveyed must be parallel. Philadelphia M. Co. v. Pride of West Lode, 3 C. L. O. 82; Instructions to Surveyor-General, Sept. 13, 1878, 5 C. L. 0. 100. 557. The end lines of a lode claim must be at right angles to the lode. Elgin M. & Sm. Co. v. Iron Silver M. Co., 14 Fed. Rep. 380. 558. The end lines of a lode claim should be at right angles to the side lines. Gleeson v. Martin White M. Co., 13 Nev. 442; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 429. 559. A location of a lode claim in the form of a triangle, i. e., having only one end line, gives the locator no right to follow his lode outside of the surface lines of his location. Montana Co. v. Clark, 42 Fed. Rep. 626. 560. Each locator is entitled to follow the dip of his lode or vein to an indefinite depth, though it carries him outside of the side lines of his location; but this right is based on the hypothesis that the side lines substantially correspond with the course of the lode or vein at the surface; and it is bounded at each end by the end lines of the location crossing the lode or vein, and extended perpendicularly downward indefinitely in their own direction. Flagstaff S. M. Co. v. Tarbett, 98 U. S. 463; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 429. 562. The locator of the apex of the vein may follow it outside of his side lines wherever it may go within perpendicular planes passed through parallel end lines. Iron Mine v. Loella Mine (S. C., Iron S. M. Co. v. Murphy), 2 McCrary, 121; 3 Fed. Rep. 368; 1 Colo. Law Rep. 16; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 548. 563. The locator of the apex of the vein, entirely within the surface lines of his claim for a portion of its length, and for the remaining portion partly within and partly without and within the surface lines of another claim, but never entirely departing from such first location, owns the entire lode within the end lines of his claim. Bullion-Beck & Champion M. Co. v. Eureka Hill M. Co., 5 Utah, 3; 11 Pac. Rep. 515. 564. The lode may not be followed on its strike outside the lines of the location. Wolfley v. Lebanon M. Co., 4 Colo. 112; 13 Mor. Min. Rep. 282. 565. The owner of a vein or lode may follow it outside of the perpendicular extension of the side lines of the claim, but not outside of its end lines. Reynolds v. Iron Silver M. Co., 116 U. S. 687. 566. Where an adverse claim is compromised by allowing applicant to secure patent, and title to both claims becomes vested in one person, he must, as to his right to follow on their dip the lodes found in the conflict, depend upon title to the patented claim. Del Monte M. & M. Co. v. New York & Last Chance M. Co., 66 Fed. Rep. 212. (Follows Flagstaff S. M. Co. v. Tarbett. 98 U. S. 463; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 607, in the principle that the locator must establish his end line where the lode departs from the assumed course and intersects the side line.) CITIZENSHIP. I. THE STATUTES. I. THE STATUTES. 561. A location properly made gives the locator the right to the vein upon which the Proof of citizenship, under this chapter, location is based, and to all other veins having their apexes in the location, with the may consist, in the case of an individual, of his own affidavit thereof; in the case of an right to follow the same on the dip between association of persons unincorporated, of the perpendicular planes passed through parallel | affidavit of their authorized agent, made on his own knowledge, or upon information and belief; and in the case of a corporation organized under the laws of the United States, or of any State or Territory thereof, by the filing of a certified copy of their charter or certificate of incorporation. 17 Stat. 94; 19 Stat. 52; sec. 2321, U. S. Rev. Stat. AN ACT to amend section twenty-three hundred and twenty-six of the Revised Statutes, in regard to mineral lands, and for other purposes. SEC. 2. That applicants for mineral patents, if residing beyond the limits of the district wherein the claim is situated, may make any oath or affidavit required for proof of citizenship before the clerk of any court of record, or before any notary public of any State or Territory. Approved April 26, 1882. (22 Stat. 49.) II. REGULATIONS. 27. By section 2325 authority is given for granting titles for mines by patent from the Government to any person, association, or corporation having the necessary qualifications as to citizenship and holding the right of possession to a claim in compliance with law. 76. The proof necessary to establish the citizenship of applicants for mining patents must be made in the following manner: In case of an incorporated company, a certified copy of their charter or certificate of incorporation must be filed. In case of an association of persons unincorporated, the affidavit of their duly authorized agent, made upon his own knowledge or upon information and belief, setting forth the residence of each person forming such association, must be submitted. This affidavit must be accompanied by a power of attorney from the parties forming such association, authorizing the person who makes the affidavit of citizenship to act for them in the matter of their application for patent. 77. In case of an individual or an association of individuals who do not appear by their duly authorized agent, you will require the affidavit of each applicant, showing whether he is a native or naturalized citizen, when and where born, and his residence. 78. In case an applicant has declared his intention to become a citizen or has been naturalized, his affidavit must show the date, place, and the court before which he declared his intention, or from which his certificate of citizenship issued, and present residence. 79. The affidavit of the claimant as to his citizenship may be taken before the register or receiver, or any other officer authorized to administer oaths within the land district; or, if the claimant is residing beyond the limits of the district, the affidavit may be taken before the clerk of any court of record or before any notary public of any State or Terri tory. 80. If citizenship is established by the testimony of disinterested persons, such testi 1. Only citizens and those who have declared their intention to become citizens are authorized to claim and locate mines. Kempton Mine, 1 C. L. O. 178; North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 6 Sawy. 299; 1 Fed. Rep. 522; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 529. 2. Mineral lands of the United States are open to exploration and purchase only by citizens and those who have declared their intention to become such. O'Reilly v. Campbell, 116 U. S. 418. 3. A resident of the United States is prima facie a citizen. Jantzen v. Arizona Copper Co., 20 Pac. Rep. 93. 4. A minor may make a mineral location if a citizen of the United States. Thompson v. Spray, 72 Cal. 528; 14 Pac. Rep. 182; Com'r to Francis Cunningham, 7 C. L. O. 179; Com'r to Thomas Price, July 1, 1891; Com'r to N. P. Stilson, June 15, 1893. 5. No distinction on account of sex is made. Com'r to Eureka Office, Nov. 13, 1877, 4 C. L. O. 179. 6. "Married women, who are citizens of the United States or who have declared their intention to become such, may locate and secure patent for mining claims, upon due compliance with law." Com'r to A. R. Dickey, Dec. 9, 1891. 7. A married woman, an alien by birth, acquires citizenship to such an extent as to qualify her to make an entry of public land, where her husband has declared his intention to become a citizen. Bogart v. Daniels, 18 L. D. 528. 8. A mining claimant must show citizenship when it is denied. Wood v. Aspen M. & S. Co., 36 Fed. Rep. 25. (But see Billings v. Aspen M. & S. Co., 51 Fed. Rep. 338; 10 U. S. App. 322.) 9. One claiming by purchase a mining location must allege citizenship of the locator. Anthony v. Jillson, 83 Cal. 296; 23 Pac. Rep. 419. 10. The heirs of a decedent who make entry must show citizenship. Gulch & Lake View Lodes, Com'r to Durango Office, Feb. 14, 1896. 11. If citizenship is alleged and the allega- | Nev. 312; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 120; 15 Nev. 450; tion is not controverted, that is sufficient Departmental decision of January 2, 1893. under the law. Mono M. Co. v. Magnolia Co., 2 C. L. O. 68; John Mooney, 3 C. L. O. 68 (form of affidavit prescribed). 12. A claimant's own affidavit is prima facie proof of his citizenship in all proceedings under Chapter 6, Title XXXII, United States Revised Statutes. North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 11 Fed. Rep. 125. 13. An affidavit of citizenship made by a mineral claimant is not only good evidence under the law, before the Land Department, but in any proceeding based on Chapter 6, Title XXXII, United States Revised Statutes. North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 6 Sawy. 503 (motion for new trial). 14. An affidavit of citizenship by an applicant for patent, made outside of the United States, must be made before a United States consular officer. Com'r to Durango Office, Sept. 19, 1895, In re Last Chance Lode. 15. The oath to a notice of location required by the Montana statutes, in which it is asserted by one of several locators that all of the locators are citizens of the United States, is prima facie proof of such citizenship. Hammer v. Garfield M. & M. Co., 130 U. S. 291. 16. Evidence that one whose citizenship is in question has voted is admissible as tending to show citizenship. S. P. R. R. Co. v. Brown, 9 L. D. 173. 17. Evidence of voting may raise a presumption of citizenship, as fraud on the part of a voter is not presumed. Jones v. S. P. R. R. Co., 19 L. D. 270. 18. In an application for a patent, proof of citizenship of original locators or intermediate owners is not required. B. N. Sanford, 1 C. L. O. 98. 19. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, locators are presumed to be citizens or to have declared their intention to become such. Garfield M. & M. Co. v. Hammer, 6 Mont. 53; 8 Pac. Rep. 153. 20. Locators must be citizens. A transfer by an alien to citizens does not cure the defect, and the claim of the transferee is not good. The presumption, however, is in favor of the locator's qualification. Want of qualification must be proven. Golden Fleece G. & S. M. Co. v. Cable Cons. G. & S. M. Co., 12 21. Where an application is made by a trustee, citizenship of the cestui que trust must be shown. Circular of June 8, 1883, 2 L. D. 725; Capricorn Placer, 10 L. D. 641. 22. The child of an American citizen born abroad is a citizen of the United States. Gaby v. Thompson, 19 L. D. 282. 23. The marriage of an alien widow residing in the United States, to a citizen during the minority of the widow's child, renders the child a citizen. State v. Newell, 45 N. Y. St. Rep. 38; United States v. Keller, 11 Biss. 314; Com'r to Pueblo Office, Feb. 8, 1896. 24. Mexicans residing in California at the time of its cession to the United States became citizens of the United States, unless they elected otherwise within one year (9 Stat. 922-929). Jones v. S. P. R. R. Co., 19 L. D. 270; Aubrey v. Clapp, 8 C. L. O. 193. 25. An Indian born within the territorial limits of the United States, who has abandoned the tribal relation and adopted the customs of civilized life, is a citizen of the United States, under section 6 of the act of February 8, 1887 (24 Stat. 388). Turner v. Holliday, 22 L. D. 215. 26. The fact that a party was not a citizen before disposing of the claim must be affirmatively shown by an adverse claimant. Kempton Mine, 1 C. L. O. 178. 27. A foreigner may make a mining location and dispose of it, provided he becomes a citizen before transferring his title. Kempton Mine, 1 C. L. O. 178. 28. An adverse complaint must allege citizenship of the adverse claimant. North Noonday Mining Co. v. Orient Mining Co., 6 Sawy. 299; 1 Fed. Rep. 522; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 529; Hess v. Winder, 30 Cal. 349; 12 Mor. Min. Rep. 217; Keeler v. Trueman, 15 Colo. 143; 25 Pac. Rep. 311; McFetters v. Pierson, 15 Colo. 201; 24 Pac. Rep. 1076; Rosenthal v. Ives, 2 Idaho, 244; 12 Pac. Rep. 904; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 324; Lee Doon v. Tesh, 6 Pac. Rep. 97. 29. On an adverse suit the complaint must set out citizenship of plaintiff and his grantors. Keeler v. Trueman, 15 Colo. 143; 25 Pac. Rep. 311. 30. Where an adverse complaint by two persons alleges citizenship of one only, on de murrer, suit will be dismissed as to the other plaintiff. Lee Doon v. Tesh, 68 Cal. 43; 8 Pac. Rep. 621. 31. The testimony of one plaintiff that he was a citizen of the United States at the time of location and that the other plaintiffs were his children, born in California, is sufficient proof of citizenship of the plaintiffs at the time of location by them. Thompson v. Spray, 72 Cal. 528; 14 Pac. Rep. 182. 32. On an adverse suit, if citizenship has not been shown, the omission is fatal to the party's right of recovery. O'Reilly v. Campbell, 116 U. S. 418. 33. On adverse suit, proof of citizenship may consist, in case of an individual, of his own affidavit thereof, and in case of an association of persons unincorporated of the affidavit of their authorized agent made upon his own knowledge or upon information and belief. O'Reilly v. Campbell, 116 U. S. 418. 34. In a suit for trespass upon a mining location the plaintiff must show citizenship, and if the defendant justifies under another location, he must show citizenship, as no rights could be acquired by a location without such qualification. Bohanon v. Howe, 2 Idaho, 417; 17 Pac. Rep. 583. 35. Citizenship of plaintiff need not be alleged in a declaration in trespass. Jackson v. Dines, 13 Colo. 90; 21 Pac. Rep. 918; McFetters v. Pierson, 15 Colo. 201; 24 Pac. Rep. 1076. Contra, Bohanon v. Howe, 2 Idaho, 417; 17 Pac. Rep. 583. 36. In actions under section 2326, United States Revised Statutes, objections as to citizenship cannot be taken in the United States supreme court for the first time. O'Reilly v. Campbell, 116 U. S. 418. 37. In case where an agent makes an affidavit of citizenship of claimants he must show that he is authorized. Com'r to Shasta Office, Nov. 23, 1878, 5 C. L. O. 146. 38. A patent issued to a citizen as trustee for an alien may not be attacked collaterally by third persons. Justice M. Co. v. Lee, 40 Pac. Rep. 444. 39. If a mineral entry is made by one as trustee for others, the nature of the trust, and the names and citizenship of the beneficiaries must be shown. Com'r to H. W. Taylor, Feb. 20, 1892, In re Nevada Copper Lode. and will be canceled. Capricorn Placer, 10 L. D. 641; Hook v. Latham, 11 L. D. 425. 41. Instructions as to disposition of an application, where several co-owners refuse to execute affidavits of citizenship. Com'r to Durango Office, Oct. 22, 1888, 15 C. L. O. 169. 42. A corporation is a citizen and an individual. Telford v. Keystone Lumber Co. (review), 19 L. D. 141. 43. A corporation is a citizen of the State where incorporated. Ohio & Mississippi R. R. Co. v. Wheeler, 1 Black, 256; Eaton v. St. Louis M. & Sm. Co., 7 Fed. Rep. 139. 44. The stockholders of a United States corporation are presumed to be citizens of the United States. Doe v. Waterloo M. Co., 70 Fed. Rep. 455. 45. A corporation may locate, but the qualifications of a corporation should be pleaded. Thomas v. Chisholm, 13 Colo. 105; 21 Pac. Rep. 1019. 46. A corporation organized under the laws of a State is a citizen of the United States and may take and hold a mining claim. North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 6 Sawy. 299; 1 Fed. Rep. 522; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 529. 47. A corporation created under the laws of one of the United States, all of whose members are citizens of the United States, is competent to locate, or join with others, in the location of a mining claim. As to whether or not it can locate more land in one claim than an individual locator, quære. McKinley v. Wheeler, 130 U. S. 630. 48. A duly qualified corporation may lo. cate a mill site under the provisions of section 2337 of the United States Revised Statutes, and maintain an adverse claim in defense of its location. Bay State Gold M. Co. v. Trevillion, 10 L. D. 194. 49. A corporation, applicant for a mining patent, must show compliance with local requirements in the matter of filing its articles of incorporation with the proper officer, but if such evidence is on file in one entry, reference may be made thereto in subsequent entries in lieu of again furnishing the same. Alta Mill Site, 8 L. D. 195; 9 L. D. 48 (review). 50. A corporation organized under the laws of a State other than the one in which it proposes to acquire title to mines, must show compliance with the State law in which it is proposed to do business. Hidden Treasure G. 40. A mineral entry made by a citizen, for the benefit of an alien corporation, is illegal | & S. M. Co., 16 C. L. O. 110. 59. The authority of an official or agent of a corporation to make application for patent must be shown. Com'r to John W. Eddy, Sept. 21, 1891, and Oct. 21, 1891. 60. A corporation interested in mining may be represented by an officer or agent at a meeting of miners called to frame district rules and regulations. McKinley v. Wheeler, 130 U. S. 630. 51. A corporation must furnish evidence showing that it has been duly incorporated, and authorized to do business under the laws of the State in which it is operating. Gold Hill & Lee Mountain M. Co., 16 C. L. O. 110. 52. Proof of citizenship of a corporation under the United States mining law, may consist of a certificate by the proper officer that the company is incorporated. A certified copy of the articles of incorporation need not be furnished. Silver King M. Co., 20 L. D. 116. (Reversing the Commissioner in requiring a certified copy of the articles of incorporation is "owned by any person or persons, ration.) 53. A properly authenticated certificate of the existence of a corporation, applicant for a mineral patent, is sufficient proof of citizenship under the statute. It is not within the province of the Land Department to inquire into the authority of a corporation under its charter, to take title for mineral lands. Rose Nos. 1 and 2 Lodes, 22 L. D. 83. 54. The right of a corporation to hold a mining claim may not be questioned by a stranger. Butte Hardware Co. v. Schwab, 34 Pac. Rep. 24. 55. A corporation formed for other than mining purposes cannot receive a patent for mineral lands from the United States. Buena Vista Electric Light Co., 18 C. L. O. 208; Com'r to Las Cruces Office, Dec. 16, 1892, Magdalena Land & Cattle Co. Contra, Com'r to Coeur d'Alene Office, Oct. 4, 1895, In re Paymaster Lode; Silver King M. Co., 20 L. D. 116; Rose Nos. 1 and 2 Lodes, 22 L. D. 83. 56. Foreign corporations claiming as transferees under United States mining patents have the same rights as the original patentees. William W. Ramage, 2 C. L. O. 115. 57. A citizen of the United States, acting as the trustee of an alien corporation, cannot make entry for the benefit of such corporation. Where the applicant is a trustee, proof of citizenship of beneficiaries is required. Capricorn Placer, 10 L. D. 641; Hook v. Lathan, 11 L. D. 425; Circular of June 8, 1883, 2 L. D. 725. 58. A party to an adverse suit, claiming under a relocation made by a corporation, must allege and prove such corporation to have been organized in some of the States or Territories of the United States, and that its members were individually qualified to make the location. Thomas v. Chisholm, 13 Colo. 105; 21 Pac. Rep. 1019. 61. In a Territory, a corporation must furnish evidence showing whether exceeding twenty per centum of the stock of said corpo corporation or corporations, association or associations not citizens of the United States." Act approved March 3, 1887 (24 Stat. 476). Gold Hill & Lee Mountain M. Co., 16 C. L. O. 110. 62. The statute of limitations of Nevada except foreign corporations from their protection. Robinson v. Imperial S. M. Co., 5 Nev. 44; Barstow v. Silver M. Co., 10 Nev. 386; Union Cons. S. M. Co. v. Taylor, 100 U. S. 37; 5 Mor. Min. Rep. 323. 63. "Naturalization has a retroactive effect so as to be deemed a waiver of all liability to forfeiture, and a confirmation of his former title." Osterman v. Baldwin, 6 Wall. 116; Jackson v. Beach, 1 Johns. Cas. 399; Com'r to Carson City Office, July 13, 1876, Sickel's Min. Dec. 76. 64. An alien twenty-one years of age, who is honorably discharged after serving an enlistment in the United States army, occupies the status of one who has declared his inten tion to become a citizen (sec. 2166, U. S. Rev. Stat.). Smith v. United States, 16 L. D. 352; Com'r to Patrick Driver, Oct. 7, 1891, same effect. 65. The oath of citizenship, when taken in accordance with law, confers upon the alien the rights of a citizen, even without the formal action of the court. Gilmore v. Pallett, 16 L. D. 102. (Citing Campbell v. Gordon, 6 Cranch, 176; John Skelton, 4 L. D. 107.) 66. A mining claimant who was born in Canada and served in the United States army during the late war cannot, on that account, be treated as a citizen, but must take out final naturalization papers. John McNeill, 17 C. L O. 41. 67. The naturalization of an alien by a court not having a clerk will not be recognized by the Land Department. J. F. Hecht |