Morning appeal. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1877-1906, 1905-01-29

1 Lindley on Mines. Sec. 800:
Snyder on Mines, Secs 41S. 423;
Preston v. Hunter. 81 Fed. 995;
Faxon v. Barnard, Fed. TOP;
Van Zandt v. Barnard. 4 Fed, 702,
Van Zandt v. Argentine NJ. Co
Fed. 725:
Strepy Stark. z Col. 514:
Craig v. Thompson, 10 Col, SIT;
And even where adverse rights have
interviewed, unless they are founde,
upon a valid location and compliance
with the law, they will be Of no
avail.
Snyder on Mines, supra;
Omar " Soper II COL, $50:
McGinnis v. Egbert. s Col, As;
This court is of the opinion that
in the absence of any provision y,
the statute prescribing a forfeiture
for failure to record claim within
a specified time a locator who is IL
the actual possession and working
bis claim will be protected in the
same. although he failed to record
bis location within the time required
| ny lH6 OI tDo StdIe Ut Tile
rules of the mining district
The mere fact that defendant was
absent from the Eddie" ground and
that some of the Eddie" stakes had
fallen down at the time plaintiffs
made their relocation of the CRATER"
did rot yitiate the Eddie location
The def dant having performed the
necessary work to hold the ground for
the year 1903, had the right to re-
enter upon the ground at the time he
did for the purpose Of doing his annual
assessment work for the year 1904.
His entry WIS lawful unless by the
failure to comply with other provis-
ions of the law, he had forfeited his
rights. Thn law is We'll settled that
actual poss &C sion of mining claim
is not essential to the validity Of the
title obtained by valid location; that
until such location is terminated by
abandonment or forfeiture no right
or claim to the property can be &C
quired by an adverse entry thereon
with view to relocation thereof.
: Belk Meagher, 104 U. S. 279, 283
2S4;
McCulloch V. Murphy, Supra;
AS to the condition of the stakes
Book v. Justice NJ. Co. So Fed
! 106. Ia.
4 The statute under consideration
+ while designed to give constructiv
i notice to prOSpectOrs to ground claim
e ed by the locatOrs was also intende
d for the benefit of the miners maxim
r location upon the public domain.
e gives to the locator ninety days t
l. record his certificate of location afte
It posting his notice of location; tell
l. him what it shall contain, and declare
e that if it does not contain what is r.
4 Quired the record" shall be void.
It does not say that il the record is M
e. made his rights to the claim shall b
s. make the record, to record his certi
a. cate of location within the time r
Il quired, and see to it that it contain
II all of the six requirements stated
n Section G1O. Why? Because !:
Is therein stated "any such record of
.. copy thereof shall be prima fac
or evidence Of the facts therein stated
But if he fails to record his claim
b. was not intended that he should
e. deprived Of all his rights to the mi
a ing ground, provided he has substa
IN TALLY complied with all theother I
o. quirements of the mining laws. II
he record of the location is the inspe
le ton of what might be called the pap
ne title; it does not of itself constitu
title nor the possessory right TO t
n mining ground to which it relate
lie AS was said by the court in Sire
no v. Stark Col, GA, 61S; "It is pure
nd a creature of the statute. and, und
81 the evident legislative intent, its D,
IT. pose and functions are two fold VIII
ng duly recorded, it becomes notice to t
is world of the facts therein set for