Bisbee daily review., 1903-02-03
MINING LAW BY s. A. MERRITT:
's-s :..:s*::: s.s**.:**:.:.s-.::.+::. +::.
(Continued From Sunday.) )


 CContinued From Sunday)
 Where two locations conflict upon the surface and the prior location is abandoned, or becomes forfeited. the ground in conflict does not pass to he junior locator. but rev erts 10 the government and any subsequent loca- tor of the abandoned claim will ac- quire all the right of the first locator. If the junior locator desires to acquire title to the area in conflict after the forfeiture. or abandonment of the older location, he should relocate his claim.
 Johnson vs. Young (Col) 34 Pac. R. 173. Oscamps vs. Crystal River Mining Co.,, 5S Federal Reporter, 293
 The locator of a mining claim. prior 10 the actual payment of the purchase money, and the issuance to him of the receipt by the and office therefor. possesses the privilege to purchase he property, and sale of a mining claim by a sheriff in execution of judgment, of course, would pass no greater right.
 In case of a valid sale. the purchas- CT would merely step into the shoes of the eXecutor debtor, and thus obtain LiAt ! iSAL NO SO Ou anu pCllOA III dl4 acts necessary to obtaining a patent in his own name. But should the judgment debtor, subsequently per form these acts himself and receive title from the government, a new and further title would vest in him which would not pass by virtue of the sher- if'S deed.
 Again. the interest in a mining claim, prior to the entry of the land in the United States land department. and the issuance of the receipt there for, is nothing more than the right to the exclusive possession of the land based upon certain conditions to be performed, a failure to perform which, forfeits the lOcatoT's interest in the land. For the foregoing reasons, and other reasons, it was decided by the United States court in 1896 in the case of Black vs Elkhorn Mining com pany, that a widow has no dover right m an unpatented mining claim. It has also been decided that wife has no community property interest in an Urpatented mining claim, hence a wife's signature is unnecessary in the conveyance of an unpatented mining calm by her husband.
 Prior to patent, a mining location gives the locator no right to the tim Der growing on the claim, except such sS may be necessary for mining, build ing, and other domestic purposes. The locator may also remove timber when ever the same is necessary to faCi.i- tate mining operations.
 4 mining claim being real property. it follows, that, with little exception, the incidents usually attaching by law 70 that kind of property also apply to a mining claim. It must be conveyed by a written instrument properly exc CUted, and it is perhaps, not amiss for lls to notice in concluding this article. that the statutes Of limitation appli- cable to real property apply to mining claims.
 These statutes of limitation, as they are called, in law. define the limit of time within which. a law suit must be brought to determine right or redress a wrong.
 If tract of land belonging to A. is in the wrongful possession of E. who claims it as his own and excludes A. therefrom, A must bring his action to eject B. within the period of time pre- scribed by the statute of limitations. otherwise his action will be barred and his remedy lost
 The statute Of limitations applicable 10 real estate in Arizona is qualified by varying circumstances, making it difficult for one to make a general statement of the time within which an action must be brought to recover possession of a mining claim. The time must be determined. more or less by the facts Of each particular case. It is sufficient for the present purpose to say that the action must be brought within the time specified in the statute
 At another time we shall be pleased to consider the subject of Relocation of Mining Claims"
 His satanic majesty expects to pave iI1.- ..-a-ts thi.