The Neihart herald. [volume] (Neihart, Mont.) 1890-1901, 1892-02-05
MINING Law.

The Supreme court, of Arizona,
has decided that the law implies an
authority in one person to locate a
mining claim in the name of another
from the fact of making such a To-
cation, and that no express delega-
ton Of authority is necessary.
On the ratification by a non-resi-
dent of a mining location made in
his name, the title vests in him as OF
the date of the location, and not Of
the ratification. 1t follows that his
title is not affected by a subsequent
location made between the first To-
cation and the ratification.
Fraud is not to be presumed from
the fact that a mining location is
made by a prospector for a non-resi-
dent, and that the nonresident sub
sequently decided the property to the
prospector, in the absence of any
Misrepresentation by the prospector
to the nonresident, and of any
minor rules and regulations disquali-
flying non-residents from being loca-
tors.
MARKING NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
POSSESSION.
In a case before the Supreme
court of California J. attempted to
locate a mining claim by posting
notices on it, but failed to mark the
location on the ground so that its
boundaries could be readily traced,
as required by Sec. 1924 of the
Revised Statutes of the United
States. He and his grantees held
possession and worked the mine until
elected by the defendant, who at
tempted to locate the claim by post
ING notices at each end AMI recorded
a copy thereof, but who also failed
to locate it's boundaries on the
ground. is. grantee worked on the
claim after the attempted location
by the defendant. The court held
that a finding that the plaintiffs and
their grantor never abandoned the
claim and were in continuous pos
session and that the defendant was a
mere trespasser was sustained by the
evidence.
TUNNEL. CLAIMS AGAINST SURFACE
LOCATIONS.
On the 26th ult. the Supreme
court of Montana handed down a
decision, with a strikingly able opin-
ion written by Justice Harwood, de-
fning the rights of tunnel claimants
as against Iocators on the surface.
On the 18th of June 1887, the plain
tiff had located a tunnel claim under
section 1925 of the Revised Statutes
of the United States and the laws of
Montana covering such locations.
On the 18th of December of the
same year the defendant had located
a quartz claim two hundred feet
north of the line Of the proposed
tunnel and about three hundred feet
from it's surface. The lode on which
this second location was made did
not appear on the surface and was
not known to exist at the time of the
location of the tunnel claim. The
tunnel claimants had driven their
tunnel one hundred feet during the
first year and five hundred feet be-
fore tho trial of the action in the
court below. The locators of the
lode claim, after doing the necessary
amount Of work, made application
for a patent. The plaintiff adversed
this application and brought this
action to e%njoin the defendant from
proceeding to obtain patent. The
District court had given Judgment
for the defendant, from which the
plaintiff appealed.
The Supreme court held that if
the defendant were allowed to pro-
coed and secure a patent, the effect
would be to deny the tunnel claim
ants the right that is given them by
the section mentioned, namely: "The
right of possession of all veins o.
lodes within three thousand fee
from the face of such tunnel on TIN
line thereof not previously known t.
exist, discovered in such tunnel, t
the same extent as if discovers
from the ~surface;" and that it woul'
also defeat the further provision c
the same section, that %"locations O
the line of such tunnel of veins c
lodes, not appearing on the surface
made by other parties after the CON
mencement Of the t%nnnel, and Will
the same is being prosecuted wit
reasonable diligence, shall be ii
valid" A decision in a case be
tween the same parties, reported i
the 18th Montana, is considered an
distinguished; and the Suprem
court reversed the judgment of tn
court below and orders that an in
junction be granted restraining tn
defendant from further %prosecutio
of his application for a patent.-A
G. BoTKINs, Attorney-at-Law, i