Elk City mining news. (Elk City, Idaho) 1903-1913, 1904-06-25

beyond Jne ufIllIS ~ h<NN'
so made. and marked and claimed as
further provided by statute, or by .ne
local rules and regulations of the partlc-
ular mining district, when not inconsiS-
tent with statutory regulations, conters
upon the locator, and his assigns ana
successors, the rights defined and spec
flied by section 1922 Of the revised stat
utes, to-wit: 1.-THE exclusive rlght Oh
possession and enjoyment of all the sur
face within the lines of their locations,
and of all veins, lodes and lodges
throughout their entire depth, the top
or apex of which lies inside Of such sur
face lines extended downward vertically
although such veins, lodes, or Lodges
may so for depart from perpendicular
in their course downward as to extend
outside the vertical side lines of such
surface locations. But their right OF
possession to such outside parts OF such
veins or lodges shall be confined to sucn
portions thereof as lie between vertical
planes drawn downward as above des-
cribed, through the end lines of their
locations; so continued in their own oil
rection that such planes will intersect
such exterior parts of such veins or
lodges" Whether the lines of the
Bunker Hill claim were so laid as en-
titles the complainant to the extralateral
right there defined and here claimed,
depends upon the probative facts of the
case.
In respect to the second objection
urged to the bill. it is enough to say that
it has heretofore been held by this court
that the ownership or possession of a
vein at the surface carries with 1t the
ownership and possession of all that
pertains to the location. ''The mining
right" as said by us in Empire State
Idaho M. &. D. Co. v. Bunker Hill &
Sullivan M. & G. Co., G. G. A., 315, sis
an integral one. 1t is secured by a
single location. The title to it is con-
veyed by one patent" 1t is separate
and distinct thing from any and every
other claim. The fact that one individ-
ual, company, or corporation locates or
acquires many such claims is wholly I'M
important. Congress has never yet seen
proper to put limit on the number of
such claims that any one person, COM
pany, or corporation may locate or ac-
quire. Whether in view of its policy
to encourage the development of the
,,oinara1 x,raa1tb Of +bo oO,,,,+,xy II ebo11
ever deem it wise to do so rests with
congress, and is a matter with which
the courts have nothing to do. The
rights which a valid location of such
claim secures to the locator and his
grantees or successors are clearly de-
fined by law, and are wholly unaffected
by any subsequent conflicting location.
In all such matters the first in time is
the first in right. Therefore, it being
conceded by the defendants answers in
the present suit that there is a vein or
lode outcropping within the surface
boundaries of the Bunker Hill claim,
and that the complainant is the owner
of the surface of that claim and of the
vein or lode within it's boundaries, it
follows, as matter of law, that if the
vein or lode so crosses the lines of the
claim as to entitle its owner to extra
lateral rights at all, the complainant
has, as against any and every other
claim not founded on a prior location,
precisely the same right, by virtue of
section 1922 of the revised statutes, to
such parts of all veins, lodes and lodges
throughout their entire depth, the tops
or apexes of which lie inside of it's sur
face lines, as lie between vertical plains
drawn downward vertically through the
end lines Of the location extended in
definitely in their own direction.
A stipulation of the parties is to the
effect that every one of the claims here
in question, except the Last Chance, is
subsequent in point of time to the Bun
ker Hill. Priority is asserted for the
Last Chance only upon the fact that it
was located, marked, and the notice of
location recorded, before the location
notice of the Bunker Hill was recorded.
A statute of the state in which the
claims are situate requires that such
notices be recorded within fifteen DAYS
after the making of the location, in the
Office of the recorder of the county, or
with the recorder of the district desig-
mated by the resident miners, as provid-
ed by sec. 3103 of the revised statutes
of Idaho. The statute, however, pro-
vides no penalty for failure to record
such notice.