The Black range. (Robinson, Socorro County, N.M.) 1882-1897, 1883-11-23
Important Court Decision.

Important Court Decision.
Justice Field Of the United States
Supreme court in the case of st. Louis
Smelling Co. Va. Kemp and Nuttall
coming before him from the state of
Colorado, has rendered the following
decision which will be of interest to
mining men as changing the present
Interpretation of the law concerning
the work necessary and manner of OBJ.
tanning patent for more than one To-
cation:
"lf a miner has only the ground COW
cred by n location, his mining claim"
and location" are identical, and the
two designations may be indlscrimi-
nately used to denote the same thing.
But if by purchase he acquires the ad-
joining location of his neighbor-that
IS, the ground which his neighbor has
taken upland adds it to his own, then
his mining claim covers the ground
embraced both locations, and hence
forth he will speak of it as his claim
Indeed, his claim may include as many
adjoining locations as he can purchase,
and the ground covered by all will con-
stitute what he claims for mining pur-
poses, or. in other words, will const tute
his mining claim, and be so designated.
Such is the general understanding Of
miners and the meaning they attach to
the term.
Section five of the Act of 1872, rer-
dering a mining claim subject to re-lo-
cation where certain conditions of i'm
provement or expenditure have not
been made, as a proviso that the origi-
nal l%ocators, "thelr heirs, assigns, or
legal representative, rave not re-
sumed work upon the claim after such
failure and before such location"
These provisions are of themselves
conclusive that the locator's interest
In a mining grant is saleable and trans
ferrable, even were there any doubt on
the subject, in the absence of express
statutory prohibition. Those of the
Act of 1870 are also conclusive of the
right of the purchaser Of claims to-
patent, for it is with reference to it
that the d~erivative right by purchase
or assignment Is mentioned. Revised
statutes, Sections 1882 and 1884.
Nv q prnviciop Of thu Voi,;n- Al
1870, still in force, two or more persons,
or association of persons, having con-
tiguous claims of any size, are allowed
to make a joint entry thereof. Revised
statutes, section 1880. If one individual
should acquire all such contiguous
claims by purchase, no sound reason
can be suggested why he should not
be equally entitled to enter them all
by one entry as when they were held
by the original parties. To quote the
language of the case cited: mo mo-
tive car be imagined for allowing two
or more persons to unite their entries
in one survey which does not apply
with at least as much force for allow
ing a single person to unite his entries
adjoining each other, in one survey"
There is no force in the suggestion
that a separate patent for each loca-
ton IS necessary to insure the required
expenditure of labor upon it. The
statute of 1872 provides that on each
claim subsequently located, until a
patent is Issued for it. there shall be
annually expended in labor or i'm
provements 800; and on claims pre-
vlously located, an annual expendi-
ture Of $40 for each one hundred feet
IN length along the vein; but where
such claims are held "in common" the
expenditure may be upon any one
claim" AS these provisions relate to
expenditures before a patent is issued,
proof OF them will be a matter of con.
sideration when application for patent
Is made. 1t is not perceived in what
way this proof a be changed or the
requirement affected. whether the pa
plication be for a patent for one claim
or for several claims held in common.
Labor and improvements, within the
meaning of the statute, are deemed to
have been had on a mining claim,
whether 1t consists of one location or
several, when the labor is performed
or the improvements are made for its
development; that is, to facilitate the
extraction Of the metals 1t may con-
tain, though in fact such labor and i'm.
provements may be ON ground which
originally constituted only one of the
locations, as in sinking a shaft, or be
at q distance from the claim itself, as
whether the labor is performed for the
turning Of a stream, or the introduce
lion OF water, or where the improve
ment consists in the construction of a
fiume to carry off the debris or waste
material. 1t would be absurd to re-
quire a shaft to be sunk on each loca-
tion in a consolidated claim when one
shaft would suffice for all the locations:
and yet 1t is seriously argued by coun.
sci and must be maintained to uphold
the judgment below.
Judgment Of the court below re-
veSeed"
'