The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-09-14
THE SINGLE TAX LODE.
Decision by the Local Land ONCE
Involving Valuable Land In
Butte City.
The Surface Ground Il Occupied
by Residences and Busi-
ness Houses
ont, IL Held by The Decision to De
Eutitled to IL.

- oOCloiOu tuVOlVAuR v1buuOIO tuuO N Sno
Butte townsite. IN which are . number Of
residences and stores. has Just been zen.
dsrsd BY the local land ONCE. The title oil
the case 10 John L. Tam and John W. Cot.
Ter ". Lucy n. etorsy. In 1890 Mrs. Storey
applied for . patent Tor the ground. called
the Single Iax lode. Tam and Cotter en-
tered . psotsst. alleging that Mrs. Storey
had failed to locate The claim and hx the
boundaries % required BY law. They also
alleged that she had not al the time and
place of posting her location notice dis
covered . mineral bearing vein; that she
had never made or caused to be made OF
done $500 worth of work or imp ovsmenta
upon the Single Tax lode. The protsstanta
also alleged that they were the owners OF
an undivided interest in tho Single Out and
Double Out lode claims. which embraced
the ground covered by tho Single Tax lode.
The land officers in their decision say:
II appears tue survey and entry OF the
Single Tax lode were based on amended
location made Dec. g.. 1883. by defendants.
On Jan. l, 1889. she had located tho same
ground as the Single Tax and Free Trade
lotes, BY her agent. Gao. w. Storey. who is
also her husband. At that time. Jan. !.
1883. the ground or the greater portion Of It
WHU COvobCu Ny tuo lOCubAOA VI uO 6AANAAO
Laurie lode. owned BY John P. Rains. Wm.
X. Patterson. Jncob HOFFMAN and VIM. N.
! colt. So far g. appears the Addis Laurie
WAS . then valid location upon which had
been expended to exceed $1,000, in labor
and improvements. consisting Of shafts.
one or more lodes or veins OF ore bearing
god and silver. On March IL. 1889. de-
fsndant purchased the interest of VIM. M.
cot In said Addie Lauiie lode; Dec. 3.
1889. she purchased the interest OF Reins
and Patterson, and on Dec. 18, 1889, she
deceased from the administrator OF his
estate.
Plaintiff maintain that the Single Tax
location was void when made. fox the rea-
son that the Adds Laurie claimants wete
not in default. having done the annual
labor required to maintain possession dur
ing the year in which the Single Tax Local
ton was mado. and that defendant, not
having done the $500 worth Of improve
ments required by law as a condition pre-
sedent to entry. can derive no benefit from
the Improvements made on the ground by
the Addie Laurie claimants.
We are of the opinion, no adverse claim
having been filed within the statutory
period. the question whethe' Stotey's loca-
ton was void or vAli,', by reason of rior
locations. cannot be raised now after entrs.
being ba, red by Sec. 1926 X. g.. providing
NO objection shall at this time DO hear
except it be shown she has failed to comply
With the provisions OF the law referring,
az We think to conditions precedent to be
performed prior to passing OF title. A
failure to adverse Ia q waiver OF p:iorities.
In this case We look upon Storey as he,-
self an original locator. She m do two 10
cations which covered vacant as we'll as To-
Gated ground. She gave these locations
names different from the location already
made on part Of This ground. During tho
same year in which she made her location
she purchased three-foutths in the prior
location. She then made an amended To-
cation. giving it the name of one of her
former locations. md embraced therein oil
tho ground covered by said former location.
Ten days later she purchased the remain
ing one-fourth in the prior or Addis Laurie
location. She had dom some amount Of
work var ;:ously estimated from $40 or $50
10 800. and in 1890 had the claim surveyed
for the land. Subsequent to NIL this plain
tids made their locations. in 1891, aud fled
protest.
Now il IL be maintained that storsy's To-
cations made Jan. l, 1889. we're void for
the reason the ground was not open to re-
location. her location made or amer led Dec.
8, 1889, when she owned three.fourths of
the Addie Laurie lode would stand as a now
location and would be valid. she had re-
moved the conflict BY purchage save rs
against a single co-owne anu her new
location of the ground would not be de-
featcd by the fact. He could hive pro-
tected his right In cont. but yrefei red to
complain.
II must DO remembered, too. that plnin-
tif's locations mnde subsequently, to he.
entry are void. for when made the land was
segregated from the public domain. Storey
vae the equitable owner thereof. and the
~-lo - y(oil NO A{anrhop Hpnlls ~n1;D A.
them.
No matter If Storey's ent y he voidnble.
until so declnred the ground is not open to
relocation. Not only has the United States
parted with the right of possession but the
equitable title as we'll. Upon what then
can plaintiff bnse their locntions?
Whatever the status of Storey's first loca-
tions. We n!e of the opinion her purchase
of the prior locations. her second l%ocation
and continued Iossession until after pay
ment md final entry by he renders her
entry valid and not o en- to attack OH this
score by subseauent looHtore.
The policy of the depaftmont is to tent
RS valid n g cond application or entry made
while yet the FIRST existed, after that first
is removed. A homestead entry segregates
the land from tho public domain. A sec-
ond ent'y is In violation of lew if made
while the first 10 yet intact upon the eco ds
of tho land Office. YET II such second bs
AS'AN ot1A ~ AiAot 10 SuuO 'bAOIs
tho practice is to treat thu second 20 hence
forth valid. S.o.ey's ent ' having been
made. and no ndve SO claim having been
filed within tho statutory period. this ques-
tion cannot be Irrigated at this time.
The only score VI on which her entry IL
oron to attack IL a failure to comply with
those provisions Of the mining Inv wherein
are prescribed certain conditions precedent
to purchase and patent.
Az to the second contention that defen-
dnnt q cured nothing by purchase Of the
Addie Laurie n the i'm improvements the 9.
on, neither reason, authority nor the law
will sustain il. This wo' k on tho Addie
Laurie was more than 81. coo in value. She
acquired it by purchase. II was done BY
her prsntors as required by section .326.
Az to the allegation that defendant had
not discovered . lode or vein in her discoy-
cry shaft when her location was made. IL
might be true and yet wholly imnntcriaI.
1t 10 not disputed hat one or moro loLes or
veins are known to exist on tho claim AMI
we're known to exist prior to location by
defendant. 1t 10 even doubtful il IL is
shown there was no vein or lode In the dis
covsSy shaft. az there 10 n dispute between
the parties "a to whore IL the discovery
shaft. SO long az the vein or lode ia dis
covered prior to the intervention of an nd
We 90 right. tho location 10 made valid,
though before invalid. Suoh lode or vein
need not DO shown in the so-called discov.
cry shaft. a. this ia not required bv the
mining laws OF the United States or Mon.
tana.
II 10 clear tho claim was properly stakod,
aud that too at the time Of survey thereof.
Ii At times between location and survey