Custer weekly chronicle. [volume] (Custer City, S.D.) 1890-1931, 1899-01-07
LAW or COVENANTS.
Full Text Of the Supreme Court Opin-
ion IN the Holy Terror Csss.


and resulted in u judgment wherein th'
claims OF plaintiff are adjudged to be Ia
valid. He appeals from said judgmen
and from All order den,in u new Trial
From the findings OF the trial courl
the following facts sappear: On Sept l6
1882, Jacob +. Reed and William Frank
lin located u portion Of the ground in
controversy as the Reed Placer mining
claim. From the date of location unit
| 1892 Reed and Franklin were in actual
notorious and peaceable possession ol
the claim, were acknowledged and re.
puted TO be its owners and during each
yeai performed the required develop
ment work. They applied for patent
November %, 1892. Final entry was
made March l3. 1893. There Was no ap-
plicaiion TOR a lode on the placer site u
side from the placer claim. The boun-
daries Of the claim Az patented coincide
with its boundaries as staked upon the
ground at time of location. January 25,
1888, Reed, Franklin, Thomas Z. Blair
and Frank Eaton marked the boun-
darIes of Tin Bar No. claim upon the
ground with stakes as required by law,
posted a discovery, or location notice
thereon and within sixty days thereafter
recorded location certificate. but did
no other act of location at that time.
The location or discovery notice was
posted inside the boundaries of the Reed
placer claim, and the point claimed AS
discovery on the Tin Bar No. ! is the
same point at which the notice was post
ed. No labor has been performed or
Improvement made upon the claim ex-
cept about 4 days work in 1889 and
about days work in 1891. each work
not exceeding $l4 in each Of those years
There was no agreement on the part Of
defendants; Blair or Franklin with
plaintiff TO perform labor or make inn
proyements on Tin Bar No. in 1893 or
1894, and no contractual relation existed
between them in regard to such claim
when the Holy Terror lode claim was
located January 25, 1888. Blair and
Eaton did the same acts OF location with
respect to Tin Bar No. 2 that were done
in respect to Tin Bar No. 1. No labor
has been performed or improvement
made upon Tin Bar No. 2, except about
days work in 1891 of value not exceed
ing $l4. There was no agreement on
the part Of defendants Franklin or Blair
with plaintiff to perform the labor or
make improvements upon lin Bar No. {.
2 ia 1892. 1893, 1894, and there WAS no
contractual relation existing between
them in regard to such claim dur
ing those years. Defendant Franklin
located the lode claims Holy Terror and
Keystone No. 4. on June %, 1894, and
September 20, 1894, respectively and
the law has been complied with so tar
as it relates to those claims since the
date of each. Defendants are the own
ers of the Holy Terror and Keystone
40. 4 save for the rights of plaintiff in
this action. No adverse was filed by
plaintiff or other owners OF either Tin
Bar No. or 2 to the application for
patent to the Reed placer claims. At
and prior to the time of the application
for patent to the placer claim there was
no known lode or vein thereon within
the boundaries Of either Tin Bar claims
of such character as TO render the ground
more valuable because of its presence.
or TO Justify the expenditure of money
for either exploitation or development.
There was no application for patent to
any lode or vein included in the placer
claim in the application for patent to
the placer claim. The Holy Terror en-
braces ! 90 acres Of the ground covered
by Tin Bar No. ], and Keystone No. 4
embraces 2.7l acres of the ground cover
ed by Tin Bar No. 2 In 1898, Eaton
conveyed an undivided one. fourth in
terest in Tin Bar No. and Tin Bar No.
2 to one George Williams, who in the
same year conveyed the same interest
TO plaintiff and one Michael McGuire
On April %, 1890, Eaton conveyed an
undivided one.fourth interest in Tin Bar
No. 2 to defendant franklin, and Blair
conveyed like interest therein to Jacob
+. Reed. When this action was com.
menced Franklin. since deceased, and
defendants Blair, Fayel and Amesbury
each owned an undivided one fourth in
terest in the Holy Terror claim and an
undivided seven thirty-sixth interest in
X eystone No. 4 Blair acquired his in.
terest in the Holy Terror claim with full
knowledge Of whatever rights the plain.
tiff had, if any. During 1891. Blair and
Franklin discovered well defined ledge
of mineral bearing rock in place carry
ing gold, upon Tin Bar No. 2, the point
of discovery being outside the limits Of
Reed placer claim. The location notice
of Tin Bar No l was posted upon a we'll
defined ledge of rock carrying tin, but
plaintiff and defendants had no knowl-
edge Of the existence Of tin or other val.
uable deposit therein until during the
trial of this action in the court below.
There is no proof that the plaintiff is,
ever was, or ever declared his intention
OF becoming. q citizen of the United
States.
1t will be assumed that the evidence
sustains the findings of fact Do they
support the judgment? Defendants can
not question plaintiffs citizenship in
this action. Manuel vs.. Wulf, l52 U. 3.
sos, IA Sup. CT. Rep. 65l.
1t is the theory of plaintiff that he
owned an interest in each of the Tin
Bar lode claims upon which the annual
assessment work was not done that
portion Of the ground covered by each
was relocated by his cotenant as tha
Holy Terror and Keystone No. 4 ; that
said relocations were valid but that the
relocators should be adjudsed to be his
trustees to the extent Of his interest in
the Tin Bar claims. This theory neces-
sarily involves the validity of the Tin
Bar locations. 1t is contended by de-
PENDANTS that neither claim ever existed
for the reason that there was no actual
discovery within its limits that the Tin
Bar No. discovery notice was posted
within the boundaries Of the then sub
sisting unpatented placer claim, and
that, II the Tin Bar location was origin
ally valid. the claim ceased to exist " hen
the placer claim was patented.
1t seems to be well settled that
stranger cannot locate lode claim with
in the limits of another subsisting un
patented lode claim, hut our attention
has not been called to any decision
which applies this rule to unpatented
placer claims. In Mr.. Lindley's recent
work this language is found: The poll
cy Of the government with reference to
lodes is, to sever them from the body of
the public lands, and to deal with them
and the land Immediately inclosing them