Tonopah bonanza. [volume] (Butler City [i.e. Butler], Nev.) 1901-1909, 1907-06-29
NECISION OF
GREAT IMPORT
unCE oBRIEN HANDS DOWN
OPINION IN MINING
CASE.

nc decision in the case of Fred A.
pell versus s, D. Coffin, in favor of
tbe plaintiff. This is n of the most
imnortant decisions that has come
ont of the courts of Nevada, going as
4 does into the rights of the locator.
Judge O'Brien has taken a broad
view of the Interpretation of the law
Of location, giving all the benefit of
the law TO the original locator, and
not to the man who may come after
him. clothed with the technlcalities
of the law. He believes that the man
who tramps over the desert, hunting
for ore, is the man who should be
protected. eve If he be ignorant of
the law.
The decision goes into those mat
ters and is very plain in their re-
gard. Bell brought an adverse suit
when the defendants tried to secure
a patent, which would have absorbed
his rights. He was the locator of the
Buzzard and Strother claims In the
Goldfeld district in this county. and
a year after he had located, Louis
Schmidt located the Kimberly claim,
which Tapped Bells property. The
contention of the defense was that
Bell had not fully complied with tne
laws in filing his location certificate;
but the court ruled that when a min
er acts in good faith in complying
with the laws, the most liberal con-
struction must be put upon his acts.
Another contention of the defense
is that the location of Bell is invalid
because IN end of his claim is
longer than II ought TO be. This
technicality is knocked out by Judge
0'Brien The location is not invalid
but Bell is not entitled to any more
ground than the law allows, but he
is entitled to that. The decision is
here given in full:
This action is based upon an adverse
claim and is brought in accordance
With the provisions of Section 8gS5 az
the Complied Laws Of the STATE OF Ne
Fada. Stated In short meter. the facts
are these:
On November a.. 1903. the plaintiffs
located the Buzzard and STROLLER lode
QlulnE claims AIfnAfp. ia tn. sF.HT4a4Y
Mining district, Nye county. state Of
Nevada. These two claims adioln each
other upon their horizontal extension.
WITHIN ninety days thereafter they per-
iected the location Of both claims by
marking the boundaries. doing tbe re-
quisite discovery work and recording
Weir certificates Of location. More than
= year after the plaintiffs had located
laese claims, and on November rs.
WV, LOUIS schmidt located the kim
lily lode mining claim. and Within
dAt ume thereafter performed the VAR
ious acts of location thereon. The kim
o1i} eiaiht' however. laps over ana
embraces portions Of the Buzgard and
%strother claims. on February ~. laos
L99ls schmidt conveyed the Kimberly I
calm 70 the defendant Coffin. There
altef the defendant made application I
70 lhe government Of the United states
sl 9 mineral patent upon the KIM
pefly claim. The plaintiffs within lie
proper ume hled their adverse claim
w protest In the United states land
eics against The issuance OF a patent /
x We defendant for those portions Of
lg kimberly claim which conflict with
XIV include parts of the Bu2zard ANA
auupthet claims. Within thirty davs
alst Tue Ming OF this adverse claim
wv NV pryttst the plaintins commenced
sss aeupn TO AVE the right of nos
termined. :" '"""i'' ''-
y Is conceded by counsel for al.
Inliht tlat the Buzzard and Strotbcr
,isa were located prior In point Of
itulf 70 tho Kimberly claim. hut 10
,talned BY them that tho rights ~
wv M piaihtns 70 the portions 81 NE
suaSaIu aud Struther claims which
sgg'hhnnlct with the Kimberly claim az,
N 49, aad subordinate to the rights
beoa,,. thdaht In the Kimberly claim
N, stli,.t' lley say, the plaintiffs bnvr
N, nteIallS complied with All tha ~
4aL n vmenls Of the laws of Nevada rrIa-
Ii NY the location of mining rl,tms
ia ~ VIE tnat the certificates Of l,ro-
a descrt hvlueu Dy them do not contain
DO NM a1tph % me discovery work ana
nero s.V" tlie markings on thu cor
tha ol the claims. ana also. brrause
h., iuHstfu claim lis moro than s0o
lohs, at one end.
las M, llthro shows that the pInlnt-
Der "A upon The ground on Noypm-
U0nu 49,. -. hAAh AAltLihltn 1fF1l InIN-
faitbs' anu that they have. in GOOD
an ~ ,ter since endeavored TO Dcffnrn
10 NAB dcts necessary and essential
N" ane = perfect and valid location
PLAINTIFF uehee also shows that the
eevan.uHs performed the renutsife dis
y yrsry work within ninety DAYS oggter
narka1 II, 1903. and that thev
claims me exterior boundaries az ibe
each ~ monuments and placed in
vas wrltten, i g a paper upon which
the claim, the name of the corner OF
ments n represented BY such mann
sented me question therefore ne
the 800 lle Court for docision Is, no
%stantIaii' ~ the plaintiffs show n sub
The Stat Nu.lpiliance with the laws or
cation ~ " Nevada governing tho To-
The location ars claims? II they do.
er claim, OF the Buzzard and Stroth.
Tho rm III must be held valid.
Of loca'tuie ~ well settled thar t,r ,cts
are Ia hs 2 locating mining claims
Good fair npeIinlly construed where
Of WI matter of common krovIoana /
ice, thst, courts Will take i1dicIai no. {
bravo ~ p,rospectors and locatore VIC ,
%penetrnto Haruships of the desert and /
places for t,ito the most inaccessible /
ssnd locafin ~ purpose OF discovering
recee,y Instances from Wiz ! usuuliy !
nature ~ advice and the nerniiar
Eehts w. y their situation and anytron- /
%uloeralityi itihiae2s the courts to view with I
ssially againneetif acts of location, cspe !
ssaoand afterv nose who go upon the I
them. VI the discovery madn NJ !
Mates ha ass court of The r-nitod !
Jared that n'ne ana time again de- !
e Ss frst locatnmr inning claim belongs to {
%deaycreGS 4ere he has in good fajtb 1 IN. !
1,rnlng theeo comply with the laws pov- :
ana Il IL ,h,ocation Of mining Claims r
,oolstrue his policy of the courts To-