Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1900-06-14
ADVERSE CLAIMANTS
The Opinion In the Case Of Pablo
Amanda Et al. VS.. The Argo
Mining Company.
GOLD COIN MINE INVOLVED
An Able Opinion Rendered By Judge
John 3. McFie - The Decision
Was In Favor of the
Plaintiffs,

The opinion Of Judge John r. McFit
In the case Of Pablo Amanda ct al. VS.
the Argo Mining Company Is of inter
est and Importance to mining men ir
all parts of the territory. The decision
was in favor Of the plaintiffs. The opin
ion is as follows:
On the 22d day of June, 1898, the de.
fendant, the Argo Mining Company, {
corporation organized under the laws
of Wisconsin, and doing business ir
this territory, filed in the United States
land Office at Santa Fe, N. NJ, an ap.
plication for patent for a number OF
mining claims, among which was a
mining claim called the Sunset, and
this claim is the only one involved in
this litigation.
On the Goth day of August, 1898, the
plaintiffs filed in the United States land
office at Santa Fe, N. NJ, an adverse
claim in the nature of a protest and
contest against the issuing of the pat
ent to the defendant for the said Sun
set mining claim, basing their adverse
right upon the location of the mining
claim upon the ground in dispute
known and called by the plaintiffs the
Gold Coin, and on the Sth day of Sep
tember. 1885, this cause was brought by
the plaintiffs to determine the rights
Of the parties under the law applicable
to such cases. Jury was waived by the
vt tirc a,,I I, -.
the court at chambers. A considerab BILE
amount of documentary and oral evil
dence having been taken during the
trial of said cause, have carefully ex-
amned the testimony and exhibits on
file in this cause. and have considered
the briefs of counsel and the authorities
therein cited for the guidance of the
court, and have arrived at the follow
ing conclusions of fact and law based
upon a preponderance of the evidence
md the law applicable to the case:
I. find from a preponderance of the
evidence that one Samuel c. Wright, on
The 18th day of November, 1892, located
upon tree substantially the following
words: Location of the Sunset. Lo-
Gated November Is. 1892. s. C. Wright,
Locator" That Wright erected two
monuments and marked two trees upon
said claim; that he did not sink 10
foot shaft upon said claim within nine
ty days from the date Of such attempt
d locatioir, MOI AT any uLhei time, nor
lid he at any time attempt to do so,
but, on the contrary, he himself testi-
fies that he paid no further attention to
the claim, and did not do more than a
few hours work upon it at any time
within three years; in fact, never did
my work upon the claim in the nature
IF assessment work, and placed no
value whatever upon the claim.
2. I further find from a preponder-
ance of the evidence that the tree
marked by Mr.. Wright, which has the
original location notice of the Sunset,
md upon and within the boundaries of
the Hoosier Girl mining claim, which is
conceded in this case to have been a
valid location prior to the time the no
tice was placed there by Mr.. Wright.
8. I further find from a preponder-
ance of the evidence that although Mr..
Wright did not regard the attempted
location of the Sunset claim as of any
validity or value whatever. and testi-
fed that he did not regard himself as
owning anything by virtue of such loca-
ton, he did In the year 1896 attempt to
convey this Sunset mining claim to one
Flavel Simonson, a representative of
the Gold Eagle Mining Company, and
also attempted to convey to the Gold
Eagle Mining Company itself this claim,
but he further testifies that although he
lid not consider the claim of any value,
he permitted the same to be placed In
the conveyance to the company at the
request of the representative OF the
company, but he placed no value upon
this claim, and while he received stock
in the company for the claims con-
veyed, he did not himself receive any
thing Of value for this particular claim.
4. find that William P. Cunning
ham, then sheriff of the county Of San
ia Fe, N. NJ, did on the 18th day of De-
cember, 1896, sell at public sale all the
property of the Gold Eagle Mining
Company upon several judgments rem
dered against said company. and that
Edward p. Hackett became the pur-
chaser of said property. including
among others the Sunset mining claim,
and that Edward P. Hackett and wife
conveyed the property purchased at
said sale by deed to Henry Smith on the
23d day of April, 1896, and find that
on the 9th day of May, 1896, Henry
Smith and wife conveyed the property
in controversy. together with other
property, to the Argo Mining Company.
The description of the claim in all of
these conveyances before mentioned
was the description contained In the
original location notice of the claim as
located by Mr.. Wright in November,
1892 as taken from the records of San
ta Fe county.
8. further find, from preponder-
ance of the evidence, that on the 18th
day of November, 1896, one L. D. Sugar
as agent for the Argo Mining Com
pany, attempted to make an amended
location of said claim by having the
same surveyed and some monuments
erected thereon to mark the boundaries
thereof.
6. further find, from preponder'
ance of the evidence, that the location
of the ground embraced within the Sun
set lode, as located and surveyed by
H. T. Brown under the direction Of Mr.
Sugar, the agent of the company, Il
very different from the ground included