Eureka daily sentinel. [volume] (Eureka, Nev.) 1871-1887, 1877-08-28

" ~
applies the term to all % or belts
of mrtal-b bearing rock living within
clearly marked boundaries. For the
reasons slresdy stated. we are OF
opinion that the Act of Congress uses
the term in the sense In which miners
understand it.
II the scientific definition Of q lode,
as made by g~eologi,ts, could be accept
ei a. the only proper one IN this Ease.
the theory of distinct veins existing in
distinct assures of the limestone, would
he not only plausible, but reasonable;
for that definition Is moi met by the
conditions In which the Eureka min
eralized zone appears. But as that
definition canuot be accepted, and does
not meet the case OF q lode as that term
il understood by miners, the theory OF
separate veins. ss distinct and discon.
nected bodies of ore falls to the
ground. 1t is. therefore. OF little COIL
sequence what name Is given to the
veins In the limestone. whether they
be called pipe veins. rake veins or
pipes OF ore, or receive the new desig-
nation suggested by one OF the wit
nesses, they are hut parts of one
greater deposit, which permeates, In q
kTtdttI WI loSS iCkIVCs " otSoFfO't"s
intervening spaces OF barren rock. the
Jackson to the Richmond, inclusive.
The Acts of Congress Of 1865 and
1872 dealt with a practical necessity of
miners; they were drawn to protect
locations on veins or lodes, as miners
understood those terms. Instances
without number exist where the
a,,..s.- ~ .a.rI. I'm a afoftfo haA
been enlarged ar restricted and quail
fed to carry tut the intention OF the
Legislature. The inquiry, where any
uncertainty exists, always IL as To
what the Legislature intended, and
when that Is ascertained. it controls.
In a recent Ease before the Supreme
Court of the United States, singing
birds were held not to he live animals.
within the meaning ola Revenue Act
of Congress-. (Reiche ". Slnythe, l3
Wall, 1872 And In n previous case,
arising upon the construction Of the
Oregon Donation Act of Congress, the
term. a single man. was held To in
clude In its meaning an unmarried
m (Sitper ". Lddd, 7 Wall,
2l9.) II any one will examine the two
decisions, reported rs they are in
WAllace's Reports, he will lind good
reasons fur both of them.
Our Judgment being that the lime
stone zone in Ruhy Hill, in Eureka
District. lying between the quxrtzits
and shale, constitutes. within the
meaning OF the Act OF Congress, one
lode OF rock bearing metal. we proceed
To consider the rights conveyed TO the
parties bv their respective patents
from the United States. All these pat.
n are founded upon previous loca
tions, taken up and improved accord
ing IN the customs and rules OF miners
in the district. E,ch patent Is evil
dence Of a perfected right in the paten-
tea To the claim conveyed. the initia
tory step for the acquisition of which
was the original location. II the date
Of such location be stated in the in
strument, the patent will take effect
bv relation ~ OF that date. so far as
ma be necessary tn cut off all inter
vening claimants, unless the prior
right of the pAtentee, by virtue Of his
earlier location, has been lost by a
failure to contest the claim OF the in
t%ervening claimant, ~ provided in the
Act of 1872. As in the system estab.
lished for the alienation of the public
lands, the patent il the contamination
of u series OF acts. having for their OBJ
ject the acquisition OF the title, the
general rule il tn give to IL an opera.
ton by relation at the date OF the in
itiatory step. 80 far As may be necss-
sary to protect the pateutee against
subsequent claimants to the same
property. As was said by the Supreme
Court in the case of Sheptey ". Cowdn,
ne Itf.. QpAl nj arn 80. .x.-s.-. .---
contending for the same property, the
first in time, In the commencement OF
proceedings for the acquisition of the
title, when the same are regularly fol.
lowed up, Is deemed 10 be the first In
right.
But this principle has been qualified
in It's application to patents of mining
ground, by provisions in The Act OF
1872, for the settlement OF adverse
claims before the issue Of the patent.
Under thai Act, when one IL seeking q
patent for his mining location and
gives proper notice OF the fact as there
prescribed, any other claimant of an
unpaten'ed location ohjecting tn the
patent of the claim, either on account
of its extent or form, or because Of as.
serted prior location, must come tor.
Wdtu WIN biS ODJOtttoiiS anu pI6Sfut
them, or he will afterwards be pre-
cluded from affecting to the issue OF
the patent. While, therefore, tho gen
eral doctrine OF relation applies to
mining patents so as to cut of inter-
vening claimants, ii any there can be,
deriving title from other sources, such
perhaps as might arise from q subss
quent location OF school warrants or a
subsequent purchase from the State.
as in the case OF Heydenfeidt v. Daney
Gold Mininy Company, reported in the
third OF Quo, the doctrine can not he
applied 40 as 10 u of the rights oil
the earlier patentee, under q later To-
cation where no opposition TO that los
cation was made under the statute.
The silence Of The first locator Is, under
the statute, n waiver Of his priority.
But from the view We take of the
rights of the parties under their re-
spective patents, and the locations
upon which those patents were issued
The question OF priority of location IL
OF no practical consequence in the
case.
The plaintiff is the patentee Of sever.
al claims on the Ruby Hill lode, but
for the purpose Of this action It Ia only
recesssry to refer To three OF them
the patents for the Champion, the Al
Tast aud the Iupita Or MapUarel