The Tombstone epitaph., 1882-02-27
TIE LAW OF RELOCATION.
Points lLaiA Down by CAisf-J astice
 Waite in . Late Decision.

las just been rendered in the case of John c. Belk, in error, vs. Henry Meagher, Antoine Gagnon and Lou isa A. Thornton. In error to the Supreme Court of Montana. Mir. Chief.Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the Court:
 This is an action of ejectment brought by Belk, the plaintiff in error, to recover the possession of 2 certain alleged quartz lode mining claim, being, as stated in the coa. plaint, . relocation of part of what is known as the Old Original Lode claim. Passing by for the present the exceptions taken to the rulings of the court at the trial on the ad- mission and rejection of testimony, the facts affecting the title of the re- spective parties may be stated as fol. lows:
 In July or August, 1864, George O. Humphrey and Wm. Allison To- cated the discovery claim on tho Original lode, and claims One and Two west of discovery. These loca. tons were valid and subsisting on the 10th of May, 1872, ::and no claim adverse to them then existed. No work was done on them between that date and June, 1875. During the month of June, 1875, and before any relocation had been made, the origin al lecators, or their grantees, resumed work upon the claims, and did enough to establish their original rights, if that could be done by a simple re- sumption of work st that time. No work was afterwsrd done oa the pro- perty by the original looators, or any one claiming under them, and it does not appear that they were in the actual possession of the claims, or any part thereof, on the 18th day of December, 1876, or for . long time before. It is conceded by both parties that the original claims lspsed on the 1st of January, 1877, because of failure to perform the annual work required by the act of Congress in such cases.
 On the 18th of December, 1876, Belk made the relocation under which he now claims, and did all that was necessary to perfect his rights if the premises were at that time open for the purpose. His entry on tho property vas peaceable, nc one appearing to resist. Between the date of his entry and the 2lst of February, 1877, he did e small amount of work on the claim, which did not occupy him more than two days of his time, and proqsbly not 50 much as that, and he had no other possession of the prop esty than such as arose from his loca- ton of the clam and his occasional labor upon it. On the 21st of Feb. ruary, 1877, the defendants entered on the property peaceably and made another relocation, doing all that was required to perfect their right, if the premises were at the time open to them. The possession they had when this suit was begun was in connec- tion with the title they acquired in that way.
 Upon this state of facts the eues- tions presented in argument for our consideration are:
 l. Whether the work done in June, 1875. was sufficient to give the orig inal locators, or those claiming under them, an exclusive right to the pos session and enjoyment of the prop. erty until January 1, 1877.
 ,. Whether, if it was, a valid relo- cation of the premises, good ss against everybody but the original locators or their grantees, could be made by Belk on the 18th of Decem- Der, 1876, his entry for that purpose being peaceable and without force? 3. Whether, if Belk's relocation was invalid when made, it became effectual in law on the lst of Janu- ary, 1877, when the original claims lapsed? and
 4. Whether, even if the relocation of Belk was invalid, the defendants could after the 1st of January, 1877, make 2 relocation which would give them as against him an exclusive right to the possession and enjoyment of the property, their entry for that purpose being made peaceably and without force!
 % For all the purposes of this case the law reads as it would if tho orig. inal act of 1872 had provided that the first annual expenditure on claims in existence when that act was pass ed, might be made at any time before January l, 1875, and annually there after until patent issued. If not made by that time the claim would be open to relocation, provided work was not resumed upon it by the orig inal locators, or those claiming under them, before a new location was made. Such being the law, it seems to us clear that if work is renewed on q claim after it has once been open to relocation, but before relocation has been actually made, the rights of the original owners stand as they would if there had been no fall.