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

JUDGE HawIey Decides That Miners |
Nean Hold Ground without Recording
Several weeks ago q case Of un- |
usual importance was argued before |
Judge Hawley. Yesterday he read
the decision from the bench and IN
sOmuch as the decision is of vital I'M
portance to all interested in mining
in this State the material points Of
the case are reproduced.
The case involved was that OF w.
J. Zerres VS.. Chas WANNA In which
Zerres relocated mining ground held
bv Vanirra Var;nna and his people
claimed that they owned the ground
from the fact that they had performed
the required work but Zerres contend
ed that as Vaninna had not recorded
his claim that it was open to reloca-
ton and therefore held the ground.
Suit was commenced to recover the
ground and Judge Hawley in his de-
cision declares that the fact that
Vaninna and people did the work
Aholds the ground in spite of the fact
the ground in dispute was not record
ed Following is the meat OF the de-
cision after reviewing the history by
the Judge.
Did they comply with the provisions
of Section 210, which declares that
within ninety days of the date OF the
posting of location notice upon the
claim the locator shall record his
claim with the mining district record
err and the county recorder of the
mining district or county in which
such claim is situated, by a location
certificate"
This is the vital question upon
which the rights OF the defendant
must stand Or fall.
The laws of the United States are
well understood by the miners and
care is usually exercised by them n
complying herewith. Under these
laws the miners are not required &c
have their notices Of location record
ed the essential provisions are tina,
'the location must be distinctly mark
ed on the ground so that its bound
aries can be readily traced" and thai
mot less than one hundred dollars
worth Of labor shall be performed o.
Improvements made during eacf
year But it was provided in Sector
1924 Rev. St., that "all records o
mining claims hereafter made shall
contain the name or names of tn
locatOrs, the date Of the location an,
such a description Of the claim o
claims located by reference to som
natural object or permanent NOM
ment as will identify the claim"
will thus be seen that Congress ev
IDENTIFY anticipated when it gave tn
authority that miners or each mil
ing district may make regulations nc
in conflict slith the laws Of Nh
United States, or with the laws of tn
State or territory. in which the di
trict is situated, governing the lOc
- ton, manner Of recording, amount {
work necessary to hold possession {
mining claim" subject to the COZ
ditions therein stated, that regulation
would be made in every mining di
trict or by the laws of the State Il
the recording of the claim.
While it is true that there is not
ing in the United States laws requir
ing a record to be made of a loo
ton, still the provisions of Sectc
1894 clearly imply that such PR
vision will be required either by IL
local laws, rules or regulations of Il
miners or by the legislature of Il
state.
The plaintiffs reply upon the pri
ciples announced in Mallett v. Unc
Sam M. Co., ] New, 1873; Oreamu1
v. Uncle Sam. M. Co.. New 215, al
Sisson v. Sommers, "a New, 379, 3
- l.
ty to maintain a right to a mini
claim after the right is acquired, It
necessary that the party cOntin
substantially to comply, not only wi
the laws of Congress, but with t
valid laws Of the state and val
rules established by the miners.
force In the district where the cla
is situated upon which such right
Ponds Failure to comply with su
laws provide for the forfeiture t
noncompliance or not. and the m
ing claim becomes subject to t
location by any qualified locator"
The court did not, however, ha
occasion to construe the provision
Section 210, which is here present'
All the authorities, both national a
State agree that unless the local
substantially complies with the Ii
in regard to the labor to be expend
on the claim, in the manner and To-
required by the statutes, his rigl
may become forfeited. This prov
ion is mandatory and must be CO
piled with. And, this when appl
to the facts of the case, Is the extt
OF the decision of Sisson v. SOmme
- Is the state statute, which requil
the certificate Of location to be reco
ed within ninety days after post
notice Of location, mandatory? D,
the failure so to record make the
cation void? The statute does not
terms so provide. The language
the statute is that "any record of
location If a lode mining claim wh