Arizona weekly citizen., 1883-12-29

!
 The Goshen" mine, upon which tn title to Defiance" mine rests, was To
 cated some sixteen months prior to tn, 8 location of the Defiance" upon Whlcl
 plaintiff s title rests.
 IL is admitted by plaintiff that tn, \ location of "GOshen" was according {,
 the forms of law, and that the work re l quired was done at the proper time [ lst Brief, Plaintiff, pp. .. 6.
 The argument IS that the location o
 ''GOshen" was invalid aud void, becaus, of the existing location of "Flux" Ye
 plaintiff admits that the location O
 of "Flux" wss void, because the ground was held at the time by valid prior To
 cation of 'Oak Grove"
 All admit that "Oak Grove" had ex
 pired by reason of no work at tho tune of the location of "Goshen." . This embraces about all the facts II
 this case.
 OPINION OF THE COURT.
 This is an action of eiectment brought
 by plaintiff to obtain possession of cer.
 tain mining lands located under the
 name of "Defance" on June 15, lssL
 Defendant, in his answer, denles title
 of plaintiff, and puts him on proof oI
 hls right to the possession. It appears
 that, on Feb. r., lSS0 this same mining land, substantially, was located under the name Of "Goshen," and that defend ant IS in possession under such location. And the real question in the case Is the validity of the location of "Goshen, ? some sixteen months prior to the loca- ton of Defiance"
 The plaintiff sets up an estoppel against the defendant, by reason of cer- tain recitals in his deed of purchase of 'Goshen.' The court has always un- 1 derstood that estoppels must be recipro- cal, and that they bind only parties and l privies in blood or estate.
 An estoppel must be reciprocal and binding on both parties, or neither" 24 Am. Occasion B, snd authorities | there clted. Again the same authority, | speaking of estoppels in pals, says: Act or conduct must have been intend | ed to influence, and must have actually [ influenced the conduct of another" Washburn on Real Property, vol. & 1 p. 69, holds as follows:
 "ltlS not, however, that an estOppel gives an estate or divests another of aD estate or interest m lands; it merely binds the interest by a conclusion which precludes the parties between whom it IS made to operate from asserting or denying the state of the title" And again, on the same page: "Estoppels l must be mutual"
 ing of estoppel, says: "Estoppel binds l-Fr md Gg,F BOnvier's Law Dict, 5il.
 ''Estoppel affect only parties" r Mass.. 257. "EstOppel must be recipro- cal"
 The court IS of the opinion that these authorities are Tn accordance with the general lIne of decisions. The court is also of the opinion that there is nothing in the case upon which the plaintiff can base an estoppel in pals.
 It seems unnecessary to say that if rt citalS m Q deed only operate as an es- tOppel between the parties to the instru. ment, that those recitals cannot operate Tn favor of stranger as an e-toppel in pAls. The very proposition involves a contradiction. Besides, ;hs party who sets up the act or conduct of another as working an estOppel in pais, must show that he acted upon the same, and that such act or conduct formed the induce ment at the time tO do what he did" Wasnburn. vol. 3. D. 7j.
 The court finds no such proof ID this case. Therefore, the court IS clearly of jhe opinion that the defendant IS not estopped by any recitals or by any Bet or conduct so far as this plaintiff is con cerned.
 Another ground taken by the plaintiff is that a locator who fails to fulfill the requirements of the law-Sec. 2324 Rev. Stat. U. S, cannot relocate. The Ian guage of the Statute is-"UpOn failure to comply with these conditions the claim or mIne upon which such fallure occurred shall be open to relocation in the same manner as If no location had ever been made" There is nothing in this language which forbids former locator or excludes him from relocating a mining claim. And the court has not been able to arrive at such conclusion from any of the authorities cited by plaintiffs counsel-snd the authorities cited in defendants brief, page If, seem to establish the contrary conditions.
 "Ihere IS no law to prevent party from relocating his own clam by diff ferent name." s Nevada, lSS-Lnd the opinion cOntinues-"I can see no reason why the existence of the former location should invalidate the deed'-In A Cal. 32, Strong vs. Ryan, the syllRsbus of the case reads as fOllOws-"If several Hs tenants in common locate R mining claim on the public lands and by fail ure to comply with the local mining laws forfeit the same, 1t may be relocated by part of the first locators with others who were strangers to the first location The court thinks that there IS nothing in the point that a locator cannot re- l0cate-and that he may abandon his location when he finds it to his interest to do so, and relocate-there is nothing in the Statute to forbid it or in the policy of the law.
 This virtually dispOses of the case m favor of the defendRnt-but as the court l has been very much benefited by the able briefs filed in the case 1t will notice some of the views presented. With regard 10 "Oak Grove location | both sides admit that 1t became inOper- | Rtive and void for want of compliance | with the Statute. Plaintiffs brief page ! 6-Deieudant's brief page l5. Again | plaintiff asserts that the location or ] sFlux" was void because of tine existing l ant admits the fact for the reason stated. Defendants brief page l5. This would | seem to put "FluX" entirely ont Of he case-yet plaintiff contends that this | void location of "Flux" is fatal tO the | location Of ''Goshen." It is clear that | the location of "Flux" cannot be void l for one purpose and valid for anothe-- and the court holds 1t to have been | .H. Frw ! this being so that the way was legally open for the location of Goshen" The l court also holds that the question Of ! bona fide raised toy plaintiff IS not sus- | tained.
 In locating "Defance" the parties had ! knowledge and notice of the defendant 8 ! rights and claims in 'Goshen"-by pos session-by the records-and as shown | hy the evidence on pages g and 70. 1 Plaintiff had knowledge of all the facts and circumstances, as much as the de ! fendant had to guide him Tn reference to the land in question -Washburn p. 76.
 The point made by plaintiff in hIs l first brief D. 16 that Goshen was not l recorded In time-is answered by the brief of the defendant on page l9 and IS | explicitly abandoned by the plaintiff in bis last brief.
 In this last argument which IS quite
 short the counsel throws no new light
 upon the question involyed-but re-
 sfirms as he states-his former proposl-
 tions. He endesvors to show that the
 location of "ORk Grove" failed Tor want
 of work, which defendant admits. He
 again endeavors to show that the lOca-
 tion of "FluX" is void-but valid for the purpose of defeating the location of
 ''GOshen says that the authorities