Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1891-01-08
LAWS oNsRELocATIoN.
Bits of Information Of Gseat Value to Miner
and Mining Men.

Great misunderstanding prevails re.
specting the law of annual labor and
relocation of lodes. In the law de.
partment OF mining journal the fol
lowing appears, which is valuable for
reference, as it covers the whole
ground:
Although section 1924 of the United
States statutes requires at least $10O
worth OF work to be done on each lode
within each year after that OF the orig
inal discovery and until the lode is
patented, or what is equivalent, a re-
ceiver's receipt is issued, the neglect to
do that required work for any one or
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 must also be legal re-
location before resumption by the
owner. The neglect and such valid re-
location combined operate to COM
plete the forfeiture. The 500 worth
of work must be done entirely within
each calendar year, between Jan. l
and Jan. l and if S99 worth of work
be done in 1890, and 81 in 1891, the
work for 1880 is not complete nor
that for 1891, until full S1OO worth
OF work shall be finished in 1891, a
fraction OF the 500 worth of work
done In any one year not applying or
cutting any figure as work for any
other year. Ii the owner neglects in
whole or in part of his annual work
for 1890 or for several years, he still
has the first claim to the lode as long
as another has not relocated it, for il
no one has taken advantage of the
claim being open to relocation, the
owner can resume work say on Jan. l, 1,
1891, or at any time thereafter in ad-
vance of such location, 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. II, however, a relocator
should commence work on Jan. L, 1891,
or at any time thereafter before such
resumption OF work by the negligent
claimant, and then conform strictly to
the requirements of the law in regard
to relocations, the rslocator's claim is
perfected and the previous owners
claim forfeited.
The question is often asked, what
amount of work must be done by the
original owner, after neglect of pre-
vious years work, to entitle him to
hold the claim? Must he not only re-
sumo work, but also continue it unin-
terruptedly until the 500 worth OF
work is completed, or if ne should also
resume work and then suspend it, cail
another party, during such suspension
and before the S100 worth of work 10
completed, enter on the lode and make
a valid relocation? A great diversity
OF opinion has been entertained on this
question; the best mining lawyers hold
that the resumption in good faith is
sufficient, and that it entities the party
so resuming to continue and complete
his 500 worth of work during that
calendar year up to and including Dec.
81. One OF the most prominent cases
of this kind noted in the books was
reported November, 1881, in SO Cali
fornia, page 100, where a mine owner
neglected his annual work for one year,
then resumed work the next year, but
after doing about S12 worth of work
upon each lode in January stopped
work. Another party entered and at
tempted to relocate in August. The
supreme court of California decided
such relocations to be illegal, and that
the original owner could have COM
pleted his work any time that year.
The work done was actual and valu-
able. The letter OF the statute up
holds the view as to resumption OF
work taken by the court below, and
forfeitures and announcements are not
to be.favored by passing them upon
language which does not plainly and
Enthusiastically provide for them. The
law may, therefore, be considered as
definitely settled in the direction indi-
Gated