Los Angeles herald., 1907-04-08
FEDERAL MINING
LAWS IN BRIEF
SYNOPSIS OF POINTS FOR THE
MINER AND PRoSPECTOR
Method Of Proving Up Annual ASSESS
ment Work on Claims in the Min
eral Reglon-Work Under
Court Order
nIeEsr nY s. ]. PARsoNs


Valuation Of work-The amount Of
money paid is not the only method Of
establishing the fact that the annual
assessment work, as required by law,
has been fully performed, but 1t is an
important factor in that direction, and
is admissible in evidence, and tends
directly to show the good faith of the
party. whalen Consoi. Copper Min.
Co. v. Whalen, 127 Fed Rep. I'll.
The labor must really and actually
be of the value of $100. Twenty days
work under a local regulation provid-
ing that "in doing all assessment work
in this district there shall be allowed
IS per day." was held to be insufficient
when the labor performed was shown
to have been really worth an amount
greatly less than 800. Woody v. Ber-
nard, SO Ark. $40.
That $4OO had been paid for excavat-
ing shafts on four claims, was held a
compliance with the statute, when It
appeared that the shaft exceeded in
dimensions the requirements Of the
local rules as to what work should
constitute the regular assessment work
of the district, and that the remoteness
of the mines and lack of facilities for
doing the work would increase the ex-
pense and trouble, when there was
nothing in the evidence justifying the
inference that there was any intention
to evade the law or come short of Its
requirements by the mine owner or by
the men whom he employed to do the
work. Wright v. Killian, 1872 Cal. Sc.
Mere proof of the expenditure of 500
is not of itself sufficient, but 1t fur
nishes an element tending strongly to
establish the good faith of the owner
One of the main tests of determining
se x1oF1 for. hes
work, or the contract price, but whether
or not the labor, work and improves
ments "were reasonably worth the said
sum of $100." McCulloch v. Murphy, 152
Fed. Rep. 147.
When several claims are held in COM
mon, necessary work to keep them all
alive may be done on one of them.
Expenditure of Money
The expenditure Of labor or money
must equal in value that which would
be required on all the claims if they
were separate or independent, and the
claims must be contiguous, so that
each claim thus associated may in some
way be benefited by the work done on
one of them. Chambers v. Harrington,
| Ii u. S. 353.
| Work can be performed on one claim
| for the benefit of several when there is
community of interest in all the
claims for the benefit of which such
work is done. Little Dorrit Gold Min.
Co. V. Arapahoe Gold Min. Co., 30 Colo.
431.
When the testimony tends to show
that several claims were selected and
worked for development purposes, and
that work on tunnel and shaft was
oone to apply on the respective claims,
and that the development work was a
benefit to all the claims, it sustains a
finding that the work done on the tun-
mel and shafts was beneficial to all the
claims and a compliance with the
statute. Fissure Min. Co. v. Old Susan
Min. Co., % Utah 444.
Work done by any of the grantors of
claimant, whether holding the legal
or equitable title during the perform
ance of the work done in the interest of
the claim, is available to preserve the
claim. Jupiter Min. Co. v. Bodie Con-
sol. Min. Co., IL Fed. Rep. GIT.
Work done by receiver by order of
court-It appearing from the testimony
that, during the year in which it was
alleged that there had been failure
to do the necessary amount of work,
the property involved was in litiga-
ton; that a receiver was appointed by
the court to take possession; that an
order was made pending the proceed
ings, authorizing and directing the re-
CSlVer 10 DOTrOW Sl0UV IOE the purpose
of preserving the property by perform
ing the annual assessment work there
on for that year; that this money was
obtained by the receiver and expended
for that purpose; that his report was
presented to the court and an order was
made approving the report of the re-
ceiver, it was held that the action of
tie court made out a prima facie case
Of compliance with the statute.
Whalen Consol Copper Min. Co. v.
Whalen, 127 Fed. Rep. Gil.
Work done by mere trespasser or a
stranger to the title will not inure to
the benefit of the locator. but when
parties at the instance of a co-owner
have, in good faith, performed 800
worth of labor or improvements, the
mine cannot be subject to a relocation.
although it might turn out on judicial
investigation that such parties had no
legal nor equitable title to any interest
therein. Nesbit v. Delamar's Nevada
Gold Min. Co. "a New. 2S3.
LAB0RER RUN DOWN BY