Helena weekly herald. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1867-1900, 1884-12-11
IMPORTANT MINERAL DECISION.
AID Adverse Claim Against Thomas CIuSGS Application
for Patent for the Friction No. Lode, After
The Period Of Publication had Expired Sat
Down Upon by The Commissioner Of the
l. 0


WAsHINGToN, d. c. November 81, 1884.
The Commissioner of the General Land
Office has rendered the following decision
in celebrated Montana mineral case. 1t
is exhaustive, and is here considered exclu
sive, and it is hardly necessary to add that
the case was won by that well-known
mineral lawyer, Ellery c. Ford, Esq.
The case came up on the appeal of VIM.
Mayer from the decision CT the Register
at Helena, rejecting his so-called adverse
claim against the issuance of patent to
John Roberts and John Duff, for tie Fric-
tion No. 2 lode claim. The claim was re-
jected on the ground that the claimants
had before filed the judment roll in their
favor for the land in controv ersy and a GER
tificate that no appeal had been taken from
the judment The Receiver, while not de-
ivering a formal opinion, dissented from
the Registers opinion, and refused to re-
ceive payment for the land. The Commits
sioner only considers questions pertinent
to the real issue involved. Maygers claim
to the ground rests upon an alleged agree
went between him and Thomas Cruise by
which, in consideration of certain services
to be rendered, the latter promised to con-
vey to the former an undivided ! interest
in the Pine Tree lode claim, which en-
braces within its limits the whole of the
ground covered by the Friction No. =
claim. To compel Cruise to convey one
third interest Mayer commen0d suit.
While the suit was pending Cruise made
application for patent to the Pine Tree
lode, and within the period of publication
John LANCER, ct al, as claimants of Eric
ton No. 2 claim, filed an adverse claim
against the Pine Tree application and COM
menced suit. 1t does not appear that
Mayer ever filed an adverse claim against
the Pine Tree application. The court rem
dered judgment in the suit of Langan ct al.
vs. Cruise in favor of Duffy and Roberts
(who had acquired the interest of Langan
ct al, and been substituted by consent of
all parties as plaintiff) for the whole of
the ground embraced in the entry. Subse-
Quently, by leave of the caurt, Mayer fill
ed supplemental complaint in his suit
against Cruise, joining Duffy and Roberts
as cO-defendants. This suit was entirely
separate from the suit of, ,Langan ct al.against
Cruise, OF, as it atterward became. Duffy
and Roberts VS.. Cruise. January 81, 1884,
Duffy and Roberts filed n judgment roll,
under the law of Montana, together with
the certificate of the Surveyor General and
the descriptive, and applied to make entry
of the Friction No. claim Hereunder.
Mayer filed his sO-called adverse claim
Fed. l, 1884, and asked for stay of pro-
ceedings until the determination of his
suit against Cruise, Duffy ct al. Upon the
above state of facts the commissioner says:
81 am of the opinion that the papers filed
by Mayer on the date last given cannot
be sustained as an adverse claim. l find
no provision of law authorizing the filing
of an adverse claim against an application
by the successful adverse claimant, whose
righ. to the possession is unimpaired, to
enter, under section 1896, r. S. mining
ground regularly awarded by judgment of
the court on suit under said section 1896.
The only period of publication within
which an adverse claim may be fled for
such ground, is the period covered by the
publication for the claim adversed, and the
failure of Mayer to file an adverse claim
during the period of publication for the
Pine Tree claim, in this instance, left him,
after the filing of the judgment roll, etc,
without standing before this Office as an
adverse claimant against Friction No. 2
claim. Further than this it is not intend
ed at this time to decide anything as to
the merits of the Friction No. = claim.
PABLO,