The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1917-04-19
MINING LAW QUESTIONS
DECIDED BY THE COURTS
LIMIT OF cRUesTAKE AGREE.
MENT-ExcLusIoNs FROM
PATENT-RoYALTlES.
"erub.tak." Agr..ment-Lima On.

6ruostake A0reement-limit On.
Under grubstake agreement witt
plaintiff, defendant made trip tG
Chicago to interest capital and thence
to "a certain district In Sonora, Mexico
where he prospected without success
Later he made another trip to Sonora
and discovered valuable mines in ano.
Their district Of that state. Plaintiff
sued for an accounting on the theory
that the defendant was a mining part
ner during his second trip. Held, that
the grubstake agreement related only
mines were discovered on that trip;
and that plaintiff had no interest in
the results of defendants second trip
made at a later date to a different
district. Hollingsworth V. Tufts (Col-
orado), 1872 Pac., 155.
Annual Labor-Tims for Perform ance.
Plaintiff went upon his mining
claims on the last day of the year in
which assessment work had to be done
and commenced work on each of two
groups of claims; no work was done
on January first, but on January Sec
ond and throughout the winter, plain
tiff continued in possession, working
and developing his claims upon which
considerable work had been previously
done On the first of January de-
PENDANTS went on the ground and,
finding no one in possession, proceed
ed to relocate the same as forfeited
ground. Held, on suit by plaintiff,
after reviewing authorities, that his
entry and commencement of labor on
the last day of the year. followed by
continuous possession and work with
only brief Interruptions during the
ensuing year was sufficient compli-
ance with the law requiring perform
ance of annual labor, and that plain
tiff's rights were established Plough
y Nelson (Utah), IS Pac., 1874. Dec
ember 4, 1915.
Board Of Directors-Power to Lease.
The following quoted Colorado sta
tute has been interpreted by the Uni
ted States circuit court of appeals,
eighth circuit, in the case of Elder V.
Western Mining company, 237 Fed
eral Reporter, 966. as invalidating a
perry where the lease has not been
approved in the manner indicated in
the statute:
THE board of directors or trustees
OK mining or manufacturing corpor-
alton shall not have the power to in
cumber the mines or plant of such cor
70 ration, or the principal machinery
incident to the production from such
mine or plant until the question shall
have been submitted at proper and
legal meeting of the stockholders and
a majority of all the shares of stock
shall have been voted in favor of such
proposition; and any mortgaging or
REMEMBERING of such property, without
such consent, shall be absolutely void"
Mining Contract-Suit for Royalties.
The parties defendant entered into
an agreement to buy mine for a GER
tain price in cash. balance to be paid
IL royalties, The cash price was paid
and the deed delivered but the de-
never commenced mining.
nor was there any specific provision in
the agreement that they must COM
nence work within a given time or
&c all. Held, on a suit for recovery of
he balance of the purchase price that |
he defendants We're not required to |
pay it unless they elected to commence |
mining operations. Johnson V. Geddes |
,Utah), 161 Pac., $40. December 2S,
916
Patent Observation-Disclosures ExA
illusions.
Where the exclusions are made from
nc application for patent of mining
laims of supposed conflicts with a
'rior patented claim, and the position
Y the prior patented claim as actual
y marked, defined and established up-
n the ground is not identical with its
osition as represented upon the plat
nd described in the field notes of sur
ey, and the supposed conflicts have
o existence in fact the areas repre- 6
ented by such theoretical exclusions {
ass under the patents to the claims
nd are therefore not subject to ap-
roprlation by subsequent location. y
'asatch Mines company Gland depart /
enD. 45 land decisions, TO- March d
1Q1e