The Mineral argus., 1884-09-04


Great misunderstanding prevails re
specting the law of annual labor and
OF relocation Of lodes. Although Sec
ton 2,324 of the United States Stat
utes requires at least $500 worth of
work to be done on each lode within
each year AFTER that of the original
discovery, and until the lode is pat
ented, or what is equivalent, a Re
ceiver's Receipt is S. ued, the neglect
to do that required work for any one
or more years, unless there is inten-
tional abandonment of the claim
does not actually forfeit the title. To
work such forfeiture there must not
only be such neglect, but there must
also be legal relocation, before re-
sumption of work by the owner, the
neglect and such valid relocation com
bined operating to complete the for
feiture. The $Ioo worth of work
must be done entirely within each
calendar year, between January Ist
and January Ist, and if 500 of work be
done in 1884, and 81 in 1885, the
work for 1884 is not complete, nor
that for 1885, until full SIoo of work
shall be finished in 1885, a fraction of
the Sloo of work done IN any one
year not applying or cutting any figure
as to work for any other year If the
owner neglects in whole or in part his
annual labor for 1884, or for several
years, he still has the first claim to the
lode as long as another has not re-
located it. for if no one has taken
Advantage of the claims being open to
relocation the owner can resume work
say on January Ist 1885, OF any time
IN ADVANCE OF SUCH RE
and from the moment of
such resumption of work in good
faith, past neglect is forgiven, and the
negligent owners title is cured of its
defect If, however, a relocator should
commence work on January 1st, 1885,
or at any time thereafter before such
resumption of work by the negligent
claimant, and should conform strictly
to the requirements of the law in re-
gard to relocations, the relocator's title
is perfected, and the previous owners
claim is forfeited. The question is
often asked what amount of work
must be done by the original owner
after neglect ola previous years work,
to entitle him to hold the cain?
Must he not only resume work, but
also continue it uninteruptedly till the
500 Of work is completed, or if he
should also resume work, and hen
it, can another party during
such suspension, and before the $500 |
worth of work is completed, enter on
the lode and make a valid relocation. |
A great diversity of op Mon has been
on this question, the best
mining lawyers holding the resumption
n good faith is sufficient, and that it |
entities the party so resuming to con
.inue and complete his SIoo worth of
work during that calend ,r year up to
md inc uling December 3Ist. The
asst case of this kind noted in the
books was repo ted November 1882, in
81 Caif}rna 100, where a mine ow6er
reelected his annual work for one
year, then resumed work the follow
ng year bur after doing about SI2 of
yYrk upon each lode in January, sas
pended work, Another party entered
md attempted to relocate in August.
The Supreme Court Of California de
:ded such relocation to be Illegal,
nd that the original owner could have
his work any time during
hat year "The work done was
ctual and valuable. The letter of
he atute upholds the view, as to re-
of work, taken by the court
elow, and forfeitures and denOunce-
nents are not to be favored by basing
hem upon language wh ch does not
lainly and unmistaiably provide for
lem," The law may, therefore, be
onSidered as dehnately settled in the
irection Mining Review. |