Lyon County times. [volume] (Silver City, Nev.) 1874-1907, 1876-02-29

/
compliance with the law.
l.. X. LIPPINCoTT,
Acting Commissioner.
The following is the decision
| SIR: have carefully considered
the case of the Hawiey Consolidated
Mining Company vs.. the Memnon
Mining Company on appeal from
your decision of April 3, 1875, upon
All application of the Memnon Min
ing Company for patent of twenty
two hundred feet OF the Sheridan
lode, Devils Gate Mining District,
Lyon County, Nevada.
| The application of the Memnon
Mining Company was filed at the 10.
cal office February %, 1874, and
with the accompanying proofs shows
that the MemnOn Mining Company
has the record title to the tract
claimed and that ii has complied
with the general and local mining
laws.
Robert Apple, claiming to act by
the authority Of the Hawley Consol-
Idated Mining Company, on the 23d
OF April, 1874, on behalf of said
company filed a protest to said APP.
plication. alleging that the Hawley
Consolidated Mining Company was
the owner of the premises therein
described.
There is nothing in the case show
ing that Mr.. Apple had any author
ity to file said protest and give
notice OF an adverse claim ex-
cept the statement in his affida-
Wit that he had the authority,
nor does it appear by his affidavit or
otherwise that he is member of
the company in whose behalf he ap-
pears.
A mere allegation OF authority is
not sufficient the authority to act
must be shown. In the case of the
Eureka Mining Company VS.. the
the Jenny Lind Mining Company ct
AL, decided November "A, 1873, it
WAS held 'that the iurat To the adj
verse claim required by the seventh
| section of said ACT (sct of May 10,
| 1921 must be made by the party
aud cannot be made by All attorney.
| (Copp's Mining Laws. p. 1897"
When, however, the party IN inter
est il an incorporated company,
which can only act through an agent
from the necessity of the case, this
rule must be somewhat modified.
In such case the company may
verify its protest by the oath of Its
President or other executive officer,
or II may by letter OF attorney APP.
point some proper person to act for
it, who would then be clothed with
sufficient power to make an afiida-
Wit. Without such authority "a per-
son not AN executive officer OF the
com pany would have no right to
act, and VIII ,tever he might do in it's
behalf would lie Invalid and should
be 50 regarded.
The location under which the
lIawiey Consolidated Mining Com
pany claims title was made long
prior to the location under which
the applicant claims, and from the
abstract attached to the protest il APP
pears that said COMPANY have The
record title to the tract described in
said location. There is nothing,
however, in the protest aud affidavit
filed by Mr.. Apple, if treated AS
competent. to show that the Hawley
Consolidated Mining Company or
its grantors have complied with the
general or local mining laws since
the location OF their claim or that
it was valid subsistiug claim at the
time the grantors of the applicant
made their location. 1t appears that
the sheridan lode and the Newport
lode are substantially the same, and
by the certificate of the Deputy Uni
ted States Surveyor it appears that
the value of the labor and improve
ments on the Hawiey Consolidated
Mining Conpany's claim on said
Newport lode exceeds $500.
This may be- true; bat there is
nothing TO show that said company
or its grantors performed the labor
or made the improvements. 1t does
appear that the Memnon Mining
Company performed labor and made
improvements on its claim and at
the filing OF its claim was in posses.
sion thereof. The lodes being sub
stantially the same, the surveyor
could truthiully certify as to the val
ne of the labor and improvements
without knowing who caused them.
found III MS protest TO show "A strict