The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1890-06-04
The Law ON Relocation.

Great misunderstanding prevails re-
spe citing the law of labor and re-
location of lodes. In the Law department.
of n mining journal the following APP
pears, which is valuable for reference az
il covers the whole ground:
Although section 2,s2I of the United
States statutes require at least SlOO worth
Of work Co be donc Oh each o within
zach year after thai Of the original dis
covery and until the lode is patented, or
what Is equivalent, "A receivers receipt Is
issued, the neglect To do that required
work for any one Dr more years, unless
there Is intentional abandonment OF the
claim, does not actually forfeit the title.
To work such forfeiture there must not
only be such neglect, but there must he
also "A legal relocation before resumption
by The owner, the neglect and such valid
relocation combined operate complete the
forfeiture. The SlOO worth Of work must
be done entirely within each calendar
year, betwccn January ! and u i,
aud il $40 worth Of work be done in
lsaO, and 81 in 1891, the work for 1850 Is
not complete, nor that for 1891, until a full
SiO worth OF work shall he finished In
1891. n fraction of the 800 worth OF work
lone In any one year not applying or cut
ting any figure as work FOR any other year.
If the owner ncglccts in whole or part his
annual work for 1850 or for several years,
he still has the first claim To the lode as
long as another has not relocated il, for il
no one has taken advantage Of the claim
being open To relocation, the owner can
resume work say on January l, 1891, or at
any time thereafter in advance of such
relocation, 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. III,
A.,.r Al .l.,nt.s ah,ttlH GnpnprsVaRa
work on January I, 1891, or at any time
thereafter before such resumption OF
work by the negligent claimant, and then
conform strictly tn the requirements OF
the law in regard To relocations, the relo-
Gators claim Is perfected, and the pre-
vious owners claim is forfeited.
The question Is often asked Ia
amount of work must be done by the
original owner, after neglect of a previous
years work, To cntitle him To hold the
claim? Must he not only resume work,
but also continue II uninterruptedly until
the 500 Of work is completed, or IL he
should also resume work and then
ing such suspension, n before the
S1O worth OF work is completed,
enter on the lode and make a valid relo-
cation? A great diversity of opinion has
been entertained on this question; the
best mining lawyers hold that the re-
sutilItibu III koou iaith - NV
that il entities the party so rcsuming To
continue mt complete his 500 worth of
work during that calendar year up To and
including December "a. One of the most
prominent cases of this kind noted in the
books was reported November, ISL, IN
63 California, page l6O, where a mine
owner neglected his annual wor for one
year, then resumcd work the following
year, but after doing about twelve dollars
worth of work upon each lode in Jan
nary, suspended work. Another party
entered aud attempted To relocate i'm
August. The supreme court OF Califor-
mia decided such rclocations to be illegal
and that the original owner could have
completed his work any time during that
year. 1.-THE work done was actual and
valuable. The letter of the statute up
holds the view, as 10 resumption OF work,
taken by the court below, u f~orfeitures
n announcements are not to be favored
by passing them upon language which
does not plainly aud Enthusiastically pro
vide for them" The law may, therefore,
he considered as definitely settled In the
lirectinu ,IouYuUI.