The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1920-05-06
United States Supreme Court Renders
Important Decision in Conflict Be
tween Placer and Lode Claims

In deciding suits relating to con
flicting mining locations in Nevad.
the United States supreme cour
makes pertinent comments on thu
rights of prospectors and locators un
der the mineral land laws says tn,
Mining Congress Journal in giving
summary of the decision
The case decided was that of Geo
A. Cole, Ed Malley Gilbert C. Ross
J. j. Healey, Guy Davis. George b
Thatcher and VIM Forman VS.. JOS
eph Ralph, the former representing
placer claims and Ralph lode claims
The lode claims were designated as
Salt Lake No. 8. Midas and Evenina
Star, and the placer claims as the
Guy Davis and Homestake Ralph
applied at the land office for patent
for the three lode claims along with
- others, and in due time two adj
verse claims were filed, one based
upon the Davis claim and covering
most of the ground within the Salt
Lake No. 8, and the other based upon
the Homestake and covering con-
siderable portion of the ground with
in the Midas and Evening Star
claims. Suits We're brought in the
state court in support Of the adverse
claims and Ralph, the sole defendant.
had them removed to the federal
court, the parties being citizesn Of
different states. Afterwards some of
the original plaintiffs were eliminat-
ed and others brought in, hut the cit
izenship remained diverse as before
The cases We're tried together and
the jury returned verdicts for the
plaintiffs and special verdicts finding
that when the placer locations were
made no lode had been discovered
within the limits of any of the lode
locations. Judgments for the plain
tiffs were entered upon the verdicts
and motions by the defendant for a
new trial were overruled. The circuit
court Of appeals reversed the judg-
ments and ordered new trial.
The cases were brought to the
United States supreme court because
the construction and application of
some of the mineral land laws was
deemed of general interest in the re-
gions where these laws are opera
tive.
Valid Locations.
Discussing the general mineral
land laws, Justice Van DeVanter, who
rendered the opinion of the supreme
court. says that in advance Of dis
covery an explorer in actual occupa-
lion and diligently searching for min
eral is treated as license or tenant
1t will. and no right can be initiated
IT acquired through a forcible, fraud
llent or clandestine intrusion upon
MS possession. But if his occupancy
be relaxed or be merely incidental to
other than a diligent search
or mineral and another enters peace
lbly and not fraudulently or clandes-
inely and makes a mineral discovery
md location, the location so made is
'alid and must be respected accord !
ngly. A location based upon discOv- |
Try gives an exclusive right of pos
session. is property in the fullest eX-
emit is subject to sale and other
orms of disposal and so long as it is
Kept alive by performance of the re-
luired annual assessment work. pre-
-ents any adverse location of the /
and.
While the two kinds of location
ode and placer-differ in some re-
poets, the justice says a discovery |
within the limits of the claim is
qually essential to both. But to
ustain a lode location the discovery
aust be of a vein or lode of rock in
lace bearing valuable mineral, and
o sustain a placer location it must
e of some other form of valuable
mineral deposit, one such being scat
cred particles of gold found in the
otter covering of the earth. A placer
iscoverv will not sustain a lode To-
alton. nor a lode discovery a placer
)cation. Justice Van DeVanter says
,cation is the act or series Of acts
thereby the boundaries of the claim
re marked, etc, but it confers no
]
9th being essential to a valid claim
Tor does assessment work take the
lace of discovery for the requirement
elating to such work is in the nature
E condition subsequent to per-
ected and valid claim, and has
nothing to do with locating or hold
~ a claim before discovery He
avs that in practice discovery usu-
lly precedes location, and the stat
tie treats it as the initial act But in
ne absence of an intervening right it
no objection that the usual and
.atutory order is reversed. In such
lse the location becomes effective
ON the date Of discovery, but in the
resence Of an intervening right it
lust remain of no effect.
The Main Issue.
The principal controversy in this J
,se was over the presence or absence {
.,,+ fo1 diccovarias within the I