The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1908-11-02
IMPORTANT CASE IS
REVERSED BY COURT
LavagninO Ruling No Longer
Need Worry Owners of
Mining Claims.

decision Of moro than passing I'M
portance has been recently rendered by
the supreme court OF the United States
(Farrell " Lockhart, IS Supreme CT. Rep.
6SD. The case OF Levagulno V. UhlIg
los L. s, AS, decided in 1905, has prob
ably done more to unsettlc the estab-
lshed Ideas OF mining law and has pro-
voked more un(avorable comment than
any other decision rendered by the ''high-
est court in the land" on the subject of
mining law. Prior to the lavaguiuo de
clslon, the law was generally understood
10 oe that a relocation on lands actually
covered at the time by another valid sub
slsting location Is void. Such lands are
not open 10. location until they have been
abandoned or forfeited. II was generally
conceded that the Lavagnino case held
IN contr1vention Of the then well settled
law on the subject. that the forfeiture
or aoandonment of senior location would
Inure To the benefit OF Junior claim that
was located so as 20 include a portion
or the existing senior location. Many
courts refused 10 follow the rule laid down
IN the LaNaSnino case, either limiting the
application OF the rule or c0ntendlng that
the more recent case of Brown y. Gurney,
t2lO [, $. lSi). silently oveVrulcd the
former case. The supreme court OF Ne
vada, in the case OF Nash V. Mcnamara
C93 Pac., i05), refused 10 be bound by
the broad rule laid down ia the Lavag-
nino case, and after an exhaustive review
or The authorities, held that the decisions
opposed TO that doctrine were too numer-
tionary"
Now comes the Farrell v Lockhart de-
olslon above referred q. written by Jus
opinion, and clears up the atmosphere.
The facts OF this case are as follows:
The South Mountain lode mining claim
was located In August 1900. On August
/; 1901. and before the South Mountain
claim would have been forfeited BY fail
uTe TO perform the required annual labor.
was practically coeXtensive with the
South Mountain ground The South
owners failed 20 do their assess
me1t TG work and, on January 2. 1903. the
Divide location was made by st!il q third
party and covered substantially the same
ground. The supreme court OF Utah CSC
rae l9,D held that the Divide locator
was entitled TO the ground lnesunuch as
me ground was not open to location when
II was Included In the CIim location. by
llG9as1n OF the existence OF the South
The United States supreme court. In
31t,,,nr 30i,, iT1n1ins on iAe Lavagnino V. Uhlg
'piniph' says: whatever may
be the inherent cogency Of that reason.
ns. IN view OF the experience OF the
courts referred TO concerning the nrac-
lee which II was declared had prevailed. I
n fe!lence upon what was deemed T. 6e
ne result OF previous decisions OF this
>ourt and the effect on vested rights |
which II was said would arise from a
,h5ange ,5s,Llg OF such practice and taking into /
,iaily Belk '. Meagher qOi L. s.. 2S9l |
mo also the more recent case OF Brown /
!. GDrney (eOi L. s. iSD. we think the /
opinion In the Lavagn!no case should bs /
lua!lhcd so as not 20 exclude the rIght !
;! a subsequent locator on an adverse |
'laln 10 test the lawfulness OF a prior
ocauon OF the same mining ground upop
ne contention that, at the time sucb |
'F.or location was made. the ground cn- /
'Faced therein was covered by q valid /
nd suoslstlng mining claim -
II Is fortunate that the law on tbys
ub)ect Is again settled and the Lavaruino /
'octrine relegated 10 history. A proSpec- |
or VINO lnFades the boundaries Of q prior. |
1alid and sUhSlstine claim. ocnu{rng 70 /
lehiS WE3tevcr-pres"nt, potential on ;
.NentuaL II he wishes 70 relocate ground !
y must walt until the prior locator aban- I
ionS u OF IS clearly In default In the per /
ormdnce .; the work required nv law 10 /
be oone.-Ainiug and Scientific Press.