Sierra County advocate. [volume] (Kingston, N.M.) 1884-1960, 1894-06-22
sep, 1887, Supreme Court Of Cali

fornia,
Duties of Tenants In Common q
Mining Claims. One tenant il
common of mining claim is boun,
to contribute his proportion of th
value of the yearly work requires
to be done to perfect title, and per
formed by his covenant, unless b,
abandons his interest In the un-
patented claim or offers TO perform
the work. Where in partition b.
one tenant in common of sucl
claim on an accounting for money
spent upon the land in excess o.
his share, no personal judgment il
rendered against the other tenant
but the property Is ordered to be
cold, he should be allowed the full
amount of the sums properly
paid out, instead OF only one half,
before the residue is divided,
Where, in such an action, the
amount allowed is less than be is
entitled to, being Tor one-half the
amount paid out, error in allowing
improper credits is harmless. -
Holbrooke VS.. Harrington, 81 Pac.
Rep 365, Supreme Court of Cali
fornia.
Notice and Record of Claim in
speaking of the distinction that
exists between the notice posted
on claim and statutory require
ments respecting the record OF
such notice, the Supreme Court of
Nevada, in Gleason vs.. Mining
said: "Thers can he no
question that the original pay
master notice was ell that the law
requires. The only objection to 1t
is that it did not contain in itself a
description of the claim by refer
ence to some natural object or
permanent monument. 1t was
not necessary that 1t should. 1t
is only the record of the claim
that is required to contain such a
description; aud there are excel.
lent reasons for making the dis
tinction between the notice and
record in this particular. A notice
Is general, and for safety ought
always be posted Immediately upon
the discovery of the vein, before
there is any time TO survey the
ground aud ascertain the hearings
and distances of natural objects or
permanent monuments in the
nelghborhood; and besides, the
claim referred to the notice is
always sufficiently identified by
the fact that it is posted on or In
Immediate proximity to the crop
pings. A notice claiming a loca-
ton en- this vein has only one
But the notice is ex-
pssed to the danger Of aemoval by
adverse claimants or destruction
by the elements, and for per,na
nent evidence OF the location its
record is provided for. The record,
II it consisted Of a mere copy Of
the notice, would net identify the
claim, and there would be sn op-
as well as temptation,
to the locators, upon the discovery
OF a more valuable mine in the
vicinity, to prove by periured
witnesses, that their notice was
posted on that mine. The floating
of claims was by no means an in
frequent occurrence prior to the
act OF 1872, aud If such attempts
we're seldom successful, they were
always vexatious, and often the
means OF levying heavy black.
mail. 1t was on this account that
the record mot the notice) was re-
quired 80 contain such descrip-
ton of the claim or claims, located
by reference to some natural
object or permanent monument, As
will identify the claim 1t is a
sufficient compliance with this
provision Of the law if the descrip-
ton of the locus of the claim is
appended to the notice when it Is
recol lded -Gird vs.. California
Oil Co, 60 Fed. Rep, 536, Cir
cult Court, s. ID. California.
Dr.. prioess cfesm Baking povde.