The Wallace miner. [volume] (Wallace, Idaho) 1907-current, 1920-09-02
LATE MINING DECISIONS
STATE AND U. S. COURTS
SHAFTS MUST BE FENCED
RIGHTS OF ALIENS-NEGLl-
GENcE OF FOREMAN.

The statute of Washington (Reming
ton code. section 1850 requires that
when quartz or lode claims are located
as forfeited or abandoned property the
location notice or certificate must
state whether the whole or any part
of the new location was located as
abandoned property. A location no
tIce that fails to recite that the claim
was located as abandoned property is
not compliance with the statute, and
is. therefore. invalid and insufficient
and no rights can be acquired there
under
Mining Claims-Certificate of Location.
The purpose of the statute in re-
quiring a certificate of mining loca-
ton to be recorded is to impart con-
structive notice to subsequent locatOrs
of the existence of the claim, its To-
cation and extent just as the mark
ings upon the ground are intended to
impart actual notice of the same facts.
But when persons have actual notice
of a mining location its boundaries
and extent. any defects in the recorded
certificate are deemed to be imma-
terial.
Heilman v. Loughrin, Montana, 1888
Pacific $40.
Mining Shaft.
The statute of Washington claws
1890, p. 121; Remington code, section
74OS) requires that any person or cor
poration who shall sink or excavate a
shaft, excavation or hole to be used
fn,
donment, erect and maintain a sub
stantial fence or other safeguard suf-
ficient to securely safeguard against
danger of persons or animals falling
into any such shaft or excavation. /
This statute does not apply to a slope /
or entry having a pitch of about 20 /
degrees. the outlet of which is pro-
tected by a house of timber covered /
with heavy wire screen drawn across T
the face of the slope. There could be L
no recovery under the statute for the .
death of a boy who voluntarily enter
ed the mine through a small door in /
the screen and passed down the slope .
for distance of over 300 feet into the /.
mine and was overcome and died from
the effects of "black damp"
Dernac V. Pacific Coast Coal Co,
Washington, 1SS Pacific Is
Mining Claims-Alien's Right.
Under the United States mining !
statutes an alien is not prevented I
from owning unpatented mining
claims, and an alien so owning any
such claim may protect his property Z
rights therein in adverse proceedings !
before the land department or in the
courts, although he may not acquire I
title from the United States through ]
such proceedings.
Genaca V. Peterson. 2O6 Federal 9O4.
p go.
See Altoona Quartz Min. Co. v. In ]
tegral Quartz Min. Co, ia Calf. 100;
As Pacific 1O47.
Mine Foreman-Negieence
The statute of Tennessee acts 1915, j
chapter 169) requires that a mine fore I
man be employed in eevry mine; that
he must have certain qualifications J
and be certified by the state board, )
and shall perform certain duties to =
keep the mine safe for the miners. \
This statute makes the foreman the I
agent of the owner or operator, and I
does not relieve such owner or OPP \
orator from liability under the doc
trine of respondent superior to a miner I
injured through the negligence of such :
foreman. The statute is not invalid J
as depriving the mine owner of his J
property without due process of law !
IN violation of the state and the Uni I
ted states constitutions. The validity J
of the act and the liability of the )
owner are based on the idea that the I
class of duties to be performed by the F
nine foreman belongs to the owner or +
operator and cannot be delegated, and 7
he cannot claim exemption merely be- ]
cause he is somewhat constrained in j
MS choice of a foreman. j.
Ducktown Sulphur, Copper & Iron r
'. Galloway. 262 Federal $50, p. 674. v
Note: This ruling is directly op- "
posed to the rule established under W
similar statutes in the states of Illinois, v
and West Virginia. N