Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/201/184.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 13:39:41+00:00

Document:
It appeared that prior to May 28, 1895, a mining lode location called the Kohnyo was owned by the Cripple Creek Mining Company, which claim was divided into two noncontiguous tracts by the Mt. Rosa placer claim. The north end of the Kohnyo, comprising 500 feet of the claim, was where the discovery of mineral was made, and it also contained a discovery shaft and the other workings and improvements of the claim. The south end, being 700 feet in length, did not show mineral, and was without development work of any kind.
The local land office permitted the claimant of the Kohnyo to enter the two tracts as one claim, but the Department ultimately refused to issue a patent for such tracts, basing the refusal upon the ground that two portions of a lode mining claim, separated by a patented placer, could not be included within one patent. The land office gave the applicant, however, the privilege to apply for a patent upon either of [201 U.S. 184, 186] the segregated tracts, and directed that, in default of an election or appeal by the claimant within sixty days from the date of the order, the entry of that portion of the claim lying south of the Mt. Rosa claim should be canceled without further notice. This decision was rendered May 28, 1895, and no appeal was taken from it; but the claimant of the Kohnyo instituted proceedings against the claimant of the Mt. Rosa placer, the purpose of which was to secure title to the vein of the Kohnyo, which, it was claimed, passed through the portion of the placer claim which conflicted with the Kohnyo location. These proceedings were prosecuted before the Land Department, with the result that on May 7, 1898, a decision was rendered against the Kohnyo claimant's contention of a known vein in the placer conflict.
July 15, 1898, the Commissioner of the General Land Office canceled the entry of the Kohnyo claim as to that portion south of the Mt. Rosa placer.
May 13, 1898, Brown located this 700 feet as the Scorpion lode claim. June 23, 1898, Gurney located the same premises as the Hobson's Choice lode claim, and July 16, 1898, Small located the same ground as the P. G. lode claim. July 15 and 16, 1898, the claimant of the Scorpion filed amended and second amended certificates.
On these facts, judgment was rendered for defendant in each case, from which plaintiffs appealed to the supreme court of the state. That court reversed the judgment in Gurney v. Brown, and entered judgment that Gurney recover the premises included in the Hobson's Choice location, and for costs; and reversed the judgment in Small v. Brown, and entered judgment 'that neither party has established any right to the [201 U.S. 184, 187] premises in controversy,' and for costs. The opinion is reported in 32 Colo. 472, 77 Pac. 357.
Messrs. William C. Prentiss, Charles F. Potter, and Horace F. Clark for brown.
[201 U.S. 184, 188] Mr. Charles C. Butler for Gurney.
[201 U.S. 184, 189] No brief was filed for Small.
The question in these cases, which was intended to be, and was passed upon, is when, in respect of the three locations, did the premises in controversy become subject to location?
In the state supreme court, counsel for Brown contended that the judgment below must be affirmed because the agreed facts failed to identify the premises in dispute as part of the Kohnyo claim; did not establish the validity of that location; and did not affirmatively show that the premises, when lo- [201 U.S. 184, 190] cated as the Scorpion, were not part of the unappropriated public domain.
But the supreme court applied the rule that where the existence of certain facts is assumed in the trial court and the trial proceeds, without objection, on that assumption, and the case is decided in reliance thereon, neither party will be heard in the court of review to question there, for the first time, the existence of the facts, and especially not where the alleged omissions might have been supplied if called to the attention of the trial court. And properly applied it, for the identity of the ground in controversy and the validity of the original Kohnyo location were conceded by both parties; and, indeed, counsel really does not deny them as matters of fact, but simply objects that the stipulation did not include them. Moreover, we think the stipulation and exhibits attached containing the various proceedings before the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the Secretary of the Interior establish the validity of the Kohnyo location. According to that record, the Kohnyo claim had passed to final entry; this entry had been recognized by the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the Secretary; the question litigated in the Land Department for something like three years, as to the knowledge of the placer applicant at the time of his application for patent of the existence of the Kohnyo vein in the placer ground, had been decided adversely to the Kohnyo claim; the Kohnyo claimant had thereupon accepted this decision, acquiesced therein, and availed himself of the privilege extended by the Commissioner's decision of May 28, 1895, and elected to retain the northerly tract of the Kohnyo claim, which amounted to a relinquishment of the southerly tract, and the entry as to that tract was thereafter formally canceled.
It may be added also that in adverse proceedings each party is practically a plaintiff and must show his title. Jackson v. Roby, 109 U.S. 440 , 27 L. ed. 990, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301; Perego v. Dodge, 163 U.S. 160, 167 , 41 S. L. ed. 113, 118, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 971. By the act of Congress of March 3, 1881 (21 Stat at L. 505, chap. 140, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1431), it was provided that if, in an adverse suit, 'title to the ground [201 U.S. 184, 191] in controversy shall not be established by either party, the jury shall so find, and judgment shall be entered according to the verdict.' Under that act it is held that before the applicant for a patent can have judgment, he must prove his claim of title to the ground. The object of the statute was, as we said in Perego v. Dodge, supra, to provide, in the case of a total failure of proof of title, for an adjudication 'that neither party was entitled to the property, so that the applicant could not go forward with the proceedings in the land office simply because the adverse claimant had failed to make out his case, if he had also failed.' 2 Lindley, Mines, 763, and cases cited.
Of course it is essential that the date of a location the ground located on should be part of the public domain, and in the present case the specific question affirmatively raised was whether the ground in controversy was a part of the public domain at the time of the respective contested locations.
It seems to us that when the Scorpion locator attempted to make that location he conceded the validity of the Kohnyo location and the segregation by that location from the public domain of the southerly portion of that claim, but assumed that the decision of the Secretary of May 7, 1898, operated to restore that tract to the public domain as of that date, since he relocated it on May 13, and on the following 15th of July filed an amended location. But the filing of the latter certificate did not cure the defect arising from the fact that the discovery shaft of the Scorpion was upon ground covered by the Kohnyo's claim, and the filing of the amended certificate could not perfect the Scorpion location in view of the previous location of the Hobson's Choice, which created intervening rights in favor of a third person.
The stipulation of facts was evidently prepared in respect of the inquiry concerning the date at which the ground in controversy reverted to and became a part of the public domain, and that embraced the question whether that resulted from the decision of the Secretary of May 7, 1898; or from [201 U.S. 184, 192] the filing by the Kohnyo claimant of its election to retain the northerly tract and relinquish the other, June 14, 1898; or upon the formal cancelation of the entry, July 15, 1898.
The election, then, by the Kohnyo claimant, filed in the land office June 14, 1898, was an abandonment of the south 700 feet of the Kohnyo claim, which took effect eo instanti. Lindley, Mines, 642-644; Derry v. Ross, 5 Colo. [201 U.S. 184, 193] 295, 300. This was voluntarily done, and took effect notwithstanding the receiver's receipt had not been formally canceled. The order of cancelation of July 15 simply recorded a pre-existing fact, and did not change the effect of the previous abandonment. By reason of that abandonment, the southerly tract, for the first time, reverted to and became a part of the public domain. And as the Hobson's Choice was the first location of the ground made after such abandonment, it follows that it was valid, and that its owner was entitled to a decision in its favor.
We again state the dates of the respective locations. The Scorpion was located May 13, 1898. The Hobson's Choice was located June 23, 1898. The location of the P. G. was July 16. Thus it is seen that the Scorpion was attempted to be located at a time when the premises were not subject to location; that the Hobson's Choice was located when the premises had reverted to the public domain; and that the location of the P. G. was after that date.
We have accepted the rulings of the Land Department that the Kohnyo location covered the southerly as well as the northerly end of that claim. Such was the decision of May 28, 1895, and that of the Secretary of the Interior of May 7, 1898, and the formal cancelation of July 15, 1898. In this separate distinct proceedings counsel cannot challenge these rulings. The attack is collateral and cannot be entertained. Steel v. St. Louis Smelting & Ref. Co. 106 U.S. 447 , 27 L. ed. 226, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 389; St. Louis Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U.S. 636 , 26 L. ed. 875. True, those decisions refer to instances where the patent had issued, but the principle of freedom from collateral attack is equally applicable where final entry has been made. The final certificate issued by the receiver after the submission of final proof and payment of the purchase price, where such is required, has been repeatedly held to be for many purposes the equivalent of a patent. We are advised in argument that the patent was issued, but it is objected that though such may be the fact, it is not so stated in the facts agreed.
The cancelation of the entry of the 700 feet did [201 U.S. 184, 194] not rest on any defect in the original location. On the contrary, the Land Department held the proceedings sufficient to entitle the Kohnyo's claimant to proceed to patent for this particular tract if he should so elect. It was only when the Kohnyo claimant abandoned that tract by making his election that he waived his right to patent, it and permitted the receiver's receipt to be canceled to that extent.
That cancelation did not itself operate to restore the southerly tract to the public domain, which had already taken place by the action of the Kohnyo claimant in compliance with the judgment of the Land Department.
We concur in the conclusions of the Supreme Court of Colorado, and the judgments are affirmed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.