Lovelock tribune. (Lovelock, Nev.) 1898-1912, 1905-12-15

evidence was presented on behalf of the
defendants, beyond their sworn answers.
That a bill in equity will lie 10 correct
material mistakes OF the land department
in granting patents 10 public lands.is be-
yond question. Mclaughlin v. U. s., 1O7 L.
S. 526. Sup. CT. s02; us Y. Minor, ia L.
S. ea3, 5 Sap Ct as6; Muiian V. e. s., Ito
U. S. 2Zi, Sup. ct. l0ll; williams Y. L.
S.. 1873 U. S. bl4, IL Sup Ct. 457. Mineral
lands were excepted from the grant made
by the United States to the railroad com
pany. See Act July %, 1866, ., 4, 10 ''14
Stat. 1897. The question to be determined
by the court is whether the land involved
in this controversy was or was not "knoRn
mineral land prior to the issuanee and de-
livery of the patent therefor. The map OF
definite location of the California & Oregon
Railroad opposite the laTtd IN question was
filed November %. 1867, and the laud was
thereupon Withdrawn from sale. The pat
ent was issued March II, 1875. The testi-
mony shows that section q contains miner
al lands that the land Is unfit for agricul-
trIrrl purposes, bui Is valuable chiefly for
I its mineral that it was "known mineral
land at and prior 10 tho issuance of the
patent; that il was occupied by miners at
very early days. Some Of the witnesses
! state that they went on the section as early
I as 1850 and 1851, aud that they mined there
! at, or shortly a,ier, that time; that mining
( was carried on subsequent thefeio. and
! that Il has been remuneratiye. Il would be
useless 10 review the testimony IN detail.
/ II is sufficient to say that il shows clearly
! and satisfactorily that section y contains.
/ and contained ''known mineral land when
il was Withdrawn from sale. and when the
patent was issued. The evidence certainly
satisfies the lest of what are mineral lands,
according TO such cases AS BeiIebaek Y.
| Hawke, 1l5 q. S. 392, i0i, 6 Sup Ct 90 D.i.
Wis Admir- V. Weibbold, 130 U. S. 5D1. SO,
/ IL Sup. Cn. 623: Iron Silver Min. CO. Y.
u. S. 39l, IL Sup. CT. 5i3. see, also, for de-
/ finition clearly stating what constitutes
mineral lands, the language OF Judge
Knowles in Railroad Go. V. Barden. AZ Fed.
30; ID, l5i U. S. 2s3, IA Sup. CT. 1890.
The general criterion would seem 10 be
that the land must he more valuable for
mineral explorations than for agricultural
purposes. There must he sufficient eyi-
dence of mineral 10 justify the expenditure
of time aud money for its extraction. And
it must be so known at the lime OF the L.
suance of the patent therefor. Deifebaclg
Y. Hawke, supra; Davis Adm'rv. Webb
bold, supra; Whitney Y. Taylor, 1873 y. s.
s5, 10 Sup. st. 1856; Barlen v. Railroad Co.
supra. All these conditions appear 10 be
amply satisfied by the evidence presented
Ii follows that The patent 10 tie railroad
company, in so far as il includes section =.
was issued through mistake and inadver-
tence on the part of the officers of the land
department. and that il is void for want Il
authority TO issue the same. Section DBL
of the Revised Statues Of the United
States provides ''that IN all cases lands
valuable for minerals shall be reserved
from sale. except as otherwise expressly
directed by law. IN being eslabii isheti
that the lands in section n were valuable
chiefly for mineral at tie time Of ihe issn-
ance Of fhe patent. he i5ir of liIe gr nta.
Company could no. be held vsiil. bceaa
acquired contrary 10 Iaw Stoddeni
Chamber, How 2si Il he isndr
luable9 tf1eIll M tta ar9
ssuad h. 4s gssel ts 4Nas
)! lcontinued o.. psse t.o.l