White Pine news weekly mining review. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1910-1920, 1911-02-05
RELOCATION VS..
RESUM PT|ON
TITLE TO MINING CLAIMS
PASSES TO NEW LOCATOR
WHEN OLD LOCATOR FAILS
TO PERFORM WORK.

In our issue of December oath
last a%ppearend a reference to the law
regulating the performance of an
nual labor on unpatented mining
claims, and relocation of claims On
which the labor had not been per-
formed nor improvements made, to
the extent of 500 as required by the
federal law. In that edition the fol-
lowing statement was made: LAS
to assessment work, all un%patented
claims upon which the annual labor
has not been performed in the year
1910, except such as have been To-
Gated within that year, are open to
relocation at midnight, December
81. 1910, to anyone except the origi-
nal locator. The latter may go upon
the ground at the last minute SO to
speak, and by the resumption of
work, and continuing it until the
500 worth has been actually COM
pleted, save his claim from being
appropriated or Jumped by others.
This point in law has been passed
upon by the courts of several states
and by the supreme court of the
United States"
This statement appears TO have
given rise to some doubt in the
minds of certain miners who have
written to inquire if 1t is a fact that
the original locator is not permitted
to relocate his own claim, and one of
our correspondents asks for legal
decisions sustaining this statement.
As far as We are aware the matter of
the right of an original locator to
relocate his own claim has never
been passed upon as a separate ques-
ton; the decisions relate to the right
of the original locator, by resuming
work before the Intervention OF
another, [ o continue his legal title
to the claim. However. he u
complete the $100 worth of work or
improvements. for If he discontinue
work before it has been finished the
claim is still subject to relocation by
another. There Is a long line of de-
cisions on which this statement is
based, of which is that of Honaker
VS.. Martin. 81 Pacific, 397.
The thory of the law is that the
title TO a Mining location rests in the
locator, whether he performs the an
nual labor or not, so long as no third
party %intervenes and relocates the
claim because of such failure of the
original locator to perform the work
required by the law. Up TO that
time it is a matter entirely between
the Original locator and the govern
ment. which will not question his
right of possession, but the m
another relocates the claim for fail
ure of the former locator TO perform
the work, title passes to the new To-
cater.
The law is very simple. 1t merely
requires the performance of $100
worth of work annually on all un-
patented claims. If the original To-
Gator fails to perform this work, his
title holds good until some one else.
because of such failure, deprives him
Of it by relocation. To allow the
original locator to hold his claim
year after year by simply relocating
the ground is absurd, as such course
would completely defeat the purpose
and intent of the law. The original
locator having failed to comply with
the laws requirements has forfeited
his right and the claim is then open
to location by any person willing to
comply with the law. except the
original locator. He may resume
work and thus save and continue his
title to the claim, but he cannot pre-
petuate hat title by simply relocat-
ing the grounS-he must do the
work required by the law. The Cali
fornia Legislature in 1909 passed a
law forbidding the relocation of a
claim by an owner who has failed
to perform his annual labor within
three years after the date of loca-
tion.-Mining and Scientific Press.