El Paso herald. (El Paso, Tex.) 1901-1931, 1910-02-16
HOW hON-MET AuC MINERAL LAND
MAY Be ACQUIRED IN STATE Of TEXAS
Applicant Can Hold Prop
erty for Year on Option
and Then Buy From State.
Mining Decisions.

Under the existing mining law of
Texas, no minerals, as such, can be
bought from the state. but the land
may be purchased under its official
classification of the state land office as
'-mineral-bearing" land. The procedure
to acquire mining claim containing
non metallic minerals, such as coal, oil,
sulphur, salt, marble. ETC.. is this:
Affidavit with Surveyor.
The claimant files with the county
surveyor an affidavit stating that he
has gone upon the land for the purpose
OF buying IT for its minerals. This affi-
davit is sent to the state land office.
and the land is not subject to be sold to
any one else until the lapse Of one year.
The claim may be an entire section in
area. with the option of an additional
section if the applicant does $4,000
worth OF development work. During the
years option. the applicant has the
right to prospect and work the claim.
Before the years option expires, the
applicant may enter into obligation
TO the state to purchase the land, pay
ing 10 percent of the price In cash and
the balance in nine equal annual in
stalments, the prices being not less
than SIS an acre If within 10 miles OF
railroad, and not less than $40 If over
10 miles from railroad.
Important Mining Decisions.
The presumption that an owner of
surface of a mining claim owns all
minerals beneath it ceases when 1t is
shown that vein found beneath the
surface has its apex in claim belong
ing to another person. But the burden
of proving ownership of such apex vein
and its dip and descent to and under
meath another claim to overcome the
presumptive ownership of the surface
iS on xrhn
ownership of such apex vein. Keely VS..
Ophir Hill, c. Nj. Co, 169 Federal Re-
porter, Sol.
Title to Mineral.
A person claiming title to minerals as
surface owner, after a severance of sur
face ownership. must show actual,
notorious, exclusive, continuous, peace
able and hostile possession of the mine,
independent of his possession of the
surface, in the same manner as a
stranger. Such actual possession may
be shown by opening and operating the
mine, and the possession is continuous
if the operation is carried on at such
seasons as the nature of the work per-
mits or the custom Of the community
requires, If there is some proof TO pos
session during an interval to connect
the operation, when resumed, with the
prior operations. Gordon VS.. Park, III
Forfeiture of Claim.
Where a forfeiture of mining claim
is based on the theory that the claim
ant failed to perform the necessary
representation work. the burden of
proof IS on the person setting up such
forfeiture to establish the same by
clear and convincing proof But where
a forfeiture is sought for failure to DO
such representation work, and the To-
Dc
by him on one of group OF claims was
done in fact for the benefit of the en-
tire group, the burden OF proof then |
shifts to the locator and he is required |
to prove that the work was adapted to 4
and suitable for the development of all |
the claims, and that il was intended for |
that purpose. This rule was applied |
where it was claimed that the work Of /
extending a tunnel for the purpose Of |
a vein appearing in a shaft
which had heretofore been sunk on /
certain claim from the top of a hill,
but such tunnel was on the opposite /
side of gulch from the other claims |
II, controversy, and it did not appear
tfSt tne vein sought TO be intercepted |
traYersed IN all the other claims, or
even crossed the gulch in their direc-
ton; and in order to render the tunnel
available to develop any Of the other /
claims 1t would be necessary to sink
shaft or Wine to a depth below the
level Of the gulch, and to drift toward
such tunnel many hundred feet, and to
carry out this plan would be far more
expensive than by sinking a shaft in
the gulch in connection with the other
claims in the group
Under such cases, the court holds that I
he representation work in the way of
extending the tunnel was not reason
lbly adapted to and could not in good
'aith have been intended to develop the
claims on the other side of the gulch, |
md such work was not sufficient to |
srevent a forfeiture of such claims.
Copper Mountain NJ. & S Co. VS.. Butte
Corbin, 1914 Pacif. Rept $40.