The copper era. (Clifton, Graham County, Ariz.) 1899-1911, 1908-08-27
Decisions On Mining Industry.

The mere placing OF d tent anu d
few tools and small supply of pro-
visions upon a placer mining claim.
are not sufficient alone and of them
selves to constitute actual possession.
But where prospector has in good
faith temporarily gone away from his
claim for the purpose of purchasing
provisions or supplies or for any other
temporary purpose, intending to re-
turn and resume his actual occupa-
tion, possession is not to be construed
to be an abandonment of his right to
the ground and another entering up
on the claim during sucL temporary
absence could not initiate any right
thereto.-Charles VS.. Kelly, Alaska;
156 Federal 433.
MINING PARTNERSHIP.
To constitute a mining partnership
it is necessary that the joint owners
of the mine actually engage in work
| ing the mine or in the business of OPP
Grating the mine. The mere Gotten
ancy of two or more persons in min
ing scheme is not of itself sufficient to
constitute them mining partners.
But it is not essential that all the
tenants join in the work of mining in
order to establish partnership; that
relation may be eSta bliShed among
such of the joint owners as actually
engage in the working or mining OPP
erations. The joint owners not so
joining in the work are left to their
rights and chargeable by their duties
as co-tenants only.-Mader VS.. Nor
man, Idaho: 81 Pacific 672.
MINING PARTNERSHIP: AUTHORITY OF
PARTNERS.
When a partnership for the location
of mining claims was practically with
out funds necessary to carrying on the
enterprise, d member of the firm was
held to have authority, in good faith,
to convey certain townsite surface
rights embracing such claim, in con-
sideration that the grantee would
perform the location work necessary
to hold the charlottesville VS.. Scott,
Nevada; % Pacific l.
MINING CLAIM: JOINT OWNERS; CON
VEYANCES.
Two persons were equal owners of
mining claims by virtue and right of
discovery and location. One of the
owners conveyed one-fourth interest
and the other d three-fourths interest
of such claims to a mining corpora
ton; thereafter, under judgment and
decree, the mining company recon
veyed to such original owners by sep
arate deeds the same share or inter
est in the mining claims that each
had heretofore conveyed to it. 1t
was held that the conveyance by such
Joint owners and the reconveyance to
them did not effect or destroy the
original, equal ownership in the min
ing claims.--Ames VS.. Howes, Idaho,
% Pacific 50.
LOCATION OF MINING CLAIM; NOTICE.
The sixty days within which the
locator must perform his location
work begin to run from the date Oh
the discovery of mineral and posting
of his discovery notice: and locator
cannot extend his time to do his work
by changing the date on his discovery
stake, or by renewing his notice Of
discovery. There cannot be two dis
coveries of the same thing by the
same person, and the law having
fixed the time in which the work mus
be performed, the locator has no pow
er or authority to extend or enlarge
that period for his own convenience
If the discovery shaft is not complet
ed within the legal time, it is mere
folly to pull down the old notice ant
put up another of later date, as thu
60 days begins to run from the date
of discovery, and no self-serving &C
of the locator can enlarge the time
: The exact rule may be stated thus
The locator is not permitted to re
enter and out himself predicatin!
such re-entry and outenter on his owl
delinquency, permitting him to re
enter and GUST himself periodically t,
save the necessity of developing hi
claim. To permit the original loca
: tor the power within himself to maxi
l effectual a forfeiture arising from hi
r own delinquency by pertecting a re
t location is to place in his hands tn
r extraordinary privilege of holding
= mineral lands perpetually without dc
r ing any location work whatever.-In
!. gemarson VS.. Coffey, Colorado; % Pa
. cifc 90S.
Why Wait For Others?
Many really prlmiSiuU miniuC