group based upon their due share or interest in the same common improve ment. If the right to a patent for the entire group be in fact earned by the construction of a common improvement of a character and value effective and sufficient for that purpose, it can make no difference that patent for all the claims is not applied for at one time, or that a part may be patented and disposed of before patent to the remainder is applied for." Mountain Chief No. 8 & Mountain Chief No. 9 Lode Min. Claims, 36 L. D. 100 (1907). The application embraced fourteen claims for which there was shown a common improvement or system which was begun after the location of eight of the claims, but before the location of the other six. The total value of the improvement was $11,000, of which $7,000 had been expended before the location of the last six claims and the balance afterwards. This was held to be sufficient. It was not necessary to apportion the expenditure made after the location of the six claims among the entire fourteen. "If the requisite benefit to the group is shown, or to the extent of such of the claims as are so benefited, and the elements of contiguity and common interest in the claims concerned appear; if the improvement represents a total value sufficient for patent purposes for the number of claims so involved; if for each claim located after the partial construction of the improvement the latter has been subsequently extended so as to represent an added value of not less than $500, each is entitled under the law to a share of the value of the common improvement in its entirety, no claim receiving more or less than another from that source, participating therein without distinction or difference; and as to each the statutory requirement in that behalf is satisfied." Aldebaran Min. Co., 36 L. D. 551 (1908).

A lime kiln erected on a placer claim containing a deposit of limestone cannot be accepted as an improvement. Like the stamp mill in Monster Lode M. Claim, above, it does not facilitate the excavation of the limestone or the development of the mine as such.

Roads cannot be treated as improvements where it is not made to appear that they have any connection with actual mining operations conducted on the claims for which application is made. Schirm-Carey & Other Placers, 37 L. D. 371 (1908).

No part of a wagon road lying partly without and partly within the limits of a group of claims will be accepted as an improvement thereon. "If the outlying portion of such a road is, for the reason stated in that decision (Douglas and Other Lode Claims, above), unavailable in patent proceedings as a mining improvement, a portion of such a road lying within a claim would seem to be equally unavailable; for it is manifest that the latter portion, if used only for the purpose of transporting supplies to, and ore from, a claim, is no more intimately connected with active mining operations thereon than would be a portion of the same road, similarly used, lying outside the limits of the claim." This was the only purpose for which it was alleged that the road in this case was constructed or used. Fargo Group No. 2 Lode Claims, 37 L. D. 404 (1909).

Where a placer claim, or a group of such claims held in common, contain deposits of such character and extent as to permit their being worked

more economically by dredging than by any other means, a dredge which has been purchased in good faith and is actually used for the exclusive purpose of working such deposit, and which has not been used as the basis for patent for any other area, may be counted as an improvement, and its cost may be accredited to that particular claim or group. Garden Gulch Bar Placer, 38 L. D. 28 (1909).

B. Survey.

p. 353. Where an application is made for a placer claim which is on land already surveyed, and conforms to legal subdivisions, no further survey or plat is necessary; but where the claim is for a fractional part of a subdivision, a survey is required. See Land Office Regulations of March 29, 1909, pars. 34-38, 89-94, and 115-169.

Montana.

Basin Min. & Concentrating Co. v. White, 22 Mont. 147, 55 Pac. 1040 (1899). Where one, intending to apply for a patent, employs a United States deputy surveyor who by mistake excludes from the survey a portion of the claim, but as soon as he discovers the mistake, has an amended survey made, a patent for the entire claim will be granted to him, notwithstanding the adverse claim of one who located on the excluded portion of the claim and made improvements thereon and applied for a patent therefor before the amended survey was made. "We know of no principle of law by which the owner of a mining claim seeking a patent can be deprived of his property because of an error by a United States surveyor in the survey, which the owner in good faith takes steps to cure, and does cure, by permission of the interior department within a few days after his discovery of its existence."

LAND OFFICE DECISIONS.

The survey of a claim is not vitiated by the fact that the connecting line with the public survey is more than two miles long, where each corner is connected with other claims that have been officially surveyed. S. H. Standart, 25 L. D. 262 (1896). But see L. O. Regs. par. 36.

A patent for a placer claim should describe the ground to be conveyed with mathematical accuracy, and where such accuracy cannot be obtained under an application which embraces lands theretofore surveyed and returned in irregular "lots," an additional survey will be required. Holmes Placer, 26 L. D. 650 (1898), affirmed 29 L. D. 368 (1899).

To include land properly subject to location the survey of a claim may be extended entirely across an excluded prior location and the end line

established within an excluded junior location. War Dance Lode, 29 L. D. 256 (1899).

The claim applied for was intersected by other claims subsequently located, but excluded from the application so that to the west of these there was only a small triangle not excluded. "The ground within the said triangle appears to have been lawfully embraced within the H. T. location and is still claimed thereunder, and to hold such ground the lines of survey of that claim may be laid upon the surface of said conflicting and excluded claims." Hidden Treasure Lode, 29 L. D. 156 (1899).

Where more than one claim is embraced in the same application, the survey and plat must so exhibit the boundaries of each as to clearly define them. Argillite Ornamental Stone Co., 29 L. D. 585 (1900).

If after the issue of an order for survey a relocation is made embracing land not included in the original order, a new order must be obtained. Signature to an application for survey must be in the handwriting of the applicant, his agent or attorney. Tipton Gold Min. Co., 29 L. D. 718 (1900).

A claim legally located may be surveyed according to its lines as marked on the ground even though the surveyed lines may fall upon lands patented prior to the survey. "Such a survey would be regular and lawful as a basis for patent, provided sufficient data be furnished thereby or by the records of the surrounding or overlapping patented claims considered in connection therewith, to enable the government in issuing its patent to make proper exclusion from the patent of all previously patented lands embraced within the exterior lines of the survey."

The department is without jurisdiction after patent to correct mistakes made in the survey and embodied in the description, as long as the patent remains outstanding. The Mono Fraction Lode Min. Claim, 31 L. D. 121 (1901).

Advantage cannot be taken of § 2331, Rev. St., providing that "where placer claims are upon surveyed lands, and conform to legal subdivisions, no further survey or plat shall be required." if the subdivisions included in an entry have been made fractional because of the exclusion therefrom of conflicting patented lode claims. This leaves irregularly shaped tracts, not co-terminous with any legal subdivision, and a survey of them must be made and filed. Albert B. Knight, 30 L. D. 227 (1900).

A survey by which record conflicts with prior surveys are made to appear, which conflicts are alleged to have no existence in fact, can be approved by the surveyor general only when it is determined, agreeably to the principle of Sinnott v. Jewett (see this case on page 482), what conflicts therewith, if any, must be recognized and the conditions are shown accordingly. Drogheda & West Monroe Extension Lode Claims, 33 L. D. 183 (1904).

Where an application for a patent for a placer claim describes a portion of the land as fractional parts of irregular shaped tracts designated as lots by the public survey (e. g. "the S. 1⁄2 of lot 3 in sec. 3," etc.), it is

impossible for such description to identify the lands claimed, and a resurvey will be required. Chicago Placer Min. Claim, 34 L. D. 9 (1902). The obligation of the mineral surveyor is to the claimant for whom the services are rendered. These are a matter of private contract which is not enforcible by the land department. The department cannot, therefore, designate another surveyor to make correction of an erroneous survey at the expense of the bondsmen of the defaulting surveyor. The claimant, if injured, may bring suit on the contract, or if that is fruitless, he may sue in the name of the United States to his use on the surveyor's official bond. Golden Rule Consol. Min. & Mill. Co., 37 L. D. 95 (1908).

('. The Application Papers.

p. 357. See Land Office Regulations of March 29, 1909, pars. 39-44, and 60.

(a) The Application.

p. 358.

Colorado.

McConaghy v. Doyle, 32 Colo. 92, 75 Pac. 419 (1903). An application for patent for a placer claim may be amended when the amendment does not embrace any additional territory, but merely reduces the area of the placer tract for which a patent was sought.

LAND OFFICE DECISIONS.

An applicant for patent, who has excluded conflicting ground embraced in a prior application of his own for another claim, may amend his application and entry so as to include ground covered by his senior location, on relinquishment of his claim thereto; but he will be required in such case to make new publication and posting and otherwise comply with the law and regulations. Victor No. 3 Lode Claim, 28 L. D. 436 (1899).

A single application may embrace and a single patent issue for placer and lode claims, where the land involved lies in one body or piece and the several claims have a common owner. Mayflower Gold Min. Co., 29 L. D.

7 (1899).

An application for patent for land embraced in an existing mineral entry should not be accepted or entertained.

Proceedings in the form of an adverse claim and suit thereon, instituted by one holding under an existing entry against a subsequent application erroneously entertained, do not constitute a recognition of the validity or regularity of that application, or divest, waive or suspend rights acquired by the entry. Morgan v. Antlers-Park-Regent Consol. Min. Co., 29 L. D. 114 (1899).

Application will not be accepted when the ground applied for is embraced in prior pending applications. John McConaghy, 29 L. D. 226 (1899);

Stranger Lode, 28 L. D. 321 (1899).

An applicant may eliminate by relinquishment or otherwise any part of a claim, not essential to its validity, without prejudicing his claim to the residue. Carrie S. Gold Min. Co., 29 L. D. 287 (1899); J. Arthur Connell, 29 L. D. 574 (1900).

The statute does not recoguize the right of a person having no interest in or control of a claim to apply for patent therefor. Proceedings for patent instituted by one who had previously conveyed his title to others will be vacated. South Carolina Lode & Other Claims, 29 L. D. 602 (1900); Extra Lode Claim, 34 L. D. 590 (1906).

Applications including ground embraced in a prior or pending application are rejected by the local office. Wanda Gold Min. Co. v. E. F. C. Min. € Mill. Co., 31 L. D. 140 (1901).

Where the official survey of a claim ties the claim to a post generally believed to be the public survey corner nearest to the claim, a notice of application for patent describing the boundaries of the claim by reference to this post is sufficient although the post be more than two miles from the claim and although some doubt exists as to whether the post be at the true corner of the section as it was supposed to be. Albemarle & Other Lode Min. Claims, 30 L. D. 74 (1900).

A notice of application for patent, which gives no connecting line between the claim and a corner of the public survey, and which does not designate the situation of the claim upon the ground with substantial accuracy otherwise, is not sufficient. Alice Lode Min. Claim, 30 L. D. 481 (1901). Land included in a pending application for patent cannot properly be included in a subsequent application of another party. But where, because of failure to show the requisite expenditure, entry was refused as to part of the land included in the first application, such action by the local officers was to the extent of the tract involved, in effect a rejection of the application, and that tract could then be included in a subsequent application. The rights of the first applicant therein were then merely possessory, and if he wished to assert them he should have filed an adverse claim against the subsequent application. Stemmons v. Hess, 32 L. D. 220 (1903).

Application for patent may be filed only by the person, association or corporation who has claimed and located the land and complied with the terms of the statute, or by the grantee or grantees of the locator or locators. Where an application for patent is made by an association of persons, one of whom has no interest in the claim, the proceeding is without statutory authority and is void. Where an association applies for patent to a group of claims, each member of the association must have an interest in each claim. Golden Crown Lode, 32 L. D. 217 (1903).

An application for patent must, under Rev. St. 2325, be filed "in the proper land office." This means the office of the land district in which the land is situated. The officers of a land district have no jurisdiction or control over lands outside the limits of their districts. Proceedings for