Tonopah bonanza. [volume] (Butler City [i.e. Butler], Nev.) 1901-1909, 1907-06-29

SHOW what mining district ar co,,n.,,
~ was situate. The notice notui,hs
suanuing these defects, was held Ia he
sumcient. In %disposing of the case tbbee
court at page 1873 of the opinfon sosm.
~ constituting notices like this n
must De remembered that. as n rnla
g ns arc u~naequainted with legal
quently out of the reach Of assietanao.
and IN view of this 1t has been yyiseiv
nero Ihat their proceedings are n ~
resarded with indulgence ana liberaIIv
ttp0nsepueu' IN this case we think that
n recorded" PO9teu
InIS language was quoted with an
proyal in the later case of Talniadgge
VI y; John l29 Calf, 435.
N Efhardt VS.. Boaro, 113, u. s. 527
ana IN Mckinley NJ. Co. VS.. Alaska NJ
Co. 1873 u. s., 500, the supreme court
Oh the United States held that The
aaoLlce OF location in each case was suf-
lnsnbstantial and contained more do
dects than the notices in the present
Section 1924 of the Revised statutes
ol the United states, which confers
upon the legislatures Of the various
states and the miners OF the different
ulstrlcts power and authority TO make
laws and regulations governing the
tUeatiSh OF mining claims, and by vir-
tue, or which delegation of power the
legislature Of Nevada has enacted the
present mining laws, provides thai All
records OF mining claims hereafter
niaae shall contain he name or names
or the locator or locators, the date of
location and such a description OF tho
70 some natural object or permanent
claim or claims located, by references
as viii identity the claim"
The notices of location of the Ruz-
zard and Strother claims fully conform
TO these provisions of the Revised
slatutes u contain all the pre-re-
qulsltes thereof. While 1t is true the
mining laws of Nevada require the cer-
tinoate of location to contain the al
menslons and location of the discovery
smart and n description of each corner
Win the markings thereon, still the
work having been actually performed
ana the corners having been actually
designated by a slip of paper placed
IN each OF the corners before the rights
OF lhe defendant OF his grantor att
lacleu' neither the defendant nor his
srantor could therefore have been in
lured by the omission of these facts
from the certificates Of location. When
Louis Schmidt went upon the ground
on November 2S, 1904, to locate the
kimberly lode claim he must have seen
the plaintiffs discovery shaft upon the
Buzlafd and Strother claims. md
should also have seen the papers In
the monuments designating the corn
efs' ~ he did see them and had the
actual knowledge which they gave. b1t
concluded to TAX advantage OF what
he deemed "A defect in the certi6cafe
OF location, the technical point he
mus made is entitled to but little con-
The object Of any notice is TO give
a subsequent locator information Of
what ground has already been appro-
pIlated ana Whatever does this fairly
notice. ~ 7''"
Great injustice would follow If wears
after a miner had located a mining
tlalm ana taken possession and worked
upon II In good faith his notice Of To-
cation We're to be subjected TO any
very nice criticisms. Mt. Diablo nj
20, VS.. callison, s Sawyer. 44g.
In Gleason VS.. Martin White NJ. Co.
10 Nev., l64, MIR. Justice Beatty. de-
livering the opinion of the Cont
speaks Of congressional legislation
upon the subject of mining claims AZ
introducing "a system lin which the
preliminary posting and recording OF
notices Is entirely out of place eNcept
as a means of protecting a claim dur
ing the time necessary for tracing the
ledge and marking the boundaries Of
m location; When the location is
mus marked all that the notice and
record were ever intended or EXPECT
To accomplish is effected In a man
49, NoH"
| quote the above nor 10
the point that IA state statute or min
ing custom requiring notices or ccr-
tihcates To contain certain things can
pe Wholly disregarded, but as showing
reasons why such a law,
When invoked years after an other
acts OF location have been performed
should receive tt liberal and not a
strict construction.
The plaintiffs having actually per-
formed the discovery WORK and having /
actually marked the corners Of thG |
buHzard and Strother claims before the |
kimberly claim was located, their fail
w" 70 include IN the certificates of To-
'Allon the discovery work and n~lHrkfnut
the corners does not render their !
iocations invalid, but such certificates |
location being In substantial COM
Dlance with the mining laws OF his !
state are sufficient.
IL Is also commended hv counsel for
defendant that the Buzzard claim Is
Tor the reason that Ii is too long
IN n side; in other words. that an
'Ncess Of ground was included within |
ne stakes n monuments thereof. !
This also Is untenable,
a location OF q mining claim rs not
invalid because II includes more ground
nan the locator is entitled By law 10
lold. In such case the location is good
or 80 much as the law authorizes to
ie located ana old as to the excess
,uly. Richmond NJ. co. VS.. Rose. nal
. p 9I6; Thompson VS.. spray. -
In considering this question the su-
IRENE court of California in Serman rs.
i2l calf, ut page 500. saws;
1T has been the uniform rule of de-
lsions in such eases that a mere mis-
axe in including in the boundaries of
ne location an excess above thai ali-
horlZed by law does not vitiate the
ocatton, Tho excess only is rejected
nd the location held good to the limit
which the locator Is entitled 90 pur.
And In Howcth VS.. SuIlingrr. nal
AIR ha1, the same Court SAYS. "Nop
= II material that the lines ana mon-
Iments Of the official survey do not
orrespond to or be identical with those
I the original location since the
CURSES and distances are simply esti-
1ated by the miners in making their
and hence II often happens
hat claims are located covering more
han 1000 feet In length n 600 feet
width, and In such case the surveyor
the lines and draws I'm the
lonuments so as to make the location
70 the requirements Of the
the location being void only
$ to the excess"
The supreme court Of Utah. in Han
en- vs., Fletcher, 10 Utah. 272. 81 Pae.
.ep., $50, held that the location of a
claim 800 feet too long and
fly feet too wide did not render tbs
leation void where the excess was in.
luded through mistake and in good (
nth and the notice posted on the
lain stated that only 1900 feet by &
DO feet was claimed. ,
In the case now before the Court !
bsolutely NJ showing was made that
mistake in making the Buzzard
lain more than 1900 feet long on one .
he contrary, tho evidence shows that
he physical conditions were suph thar