Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/252/286.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 17:21:17+00:00

Document:
[252 U.S. 286, 288] Messrs. George B. Thacher and William C. Prentiss, of Washington, D. C., for petitioners.
These suits relate to conflicting mining locations in Nevada and are what are commonly called adverse suits. [252 U.S. 286, 289] The locations set up on one side are lode and those on the other placer, the former being designated as Salt Lake No. 3, Midas, and Evening Star and the latter as Guy Davis and Homestake. Joseph Ralph is the lode claimant and the other parties are the placer claimants.
The cases were tried together to the court and a jury, the latter returning general 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 plaintiffs were entered upon the verdicts and motions by the defendant for a new trial were overruled. Upon writs of error the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the judgments and ordered a new trial, one judge dissenting. Ralph v. Cole, 249 Fed. 81, 161 C. C. A. 133. The cases are here upon writs of certiorari which were granted because the ground upon which the Circuit Court of Appeals put its decision-The construction and application of some of the mineral land laws-was deemed of general interest in the regions where those laws are operative.
The defendant does not rely entirely upon the ground of decision advanced by the Circuit Court of Appeals, [252 U.S. 286, 290] but urges at length that, if it be not well taken, the record discloses other grounds, not considered by that court, for reversing the judgments and ordering a new trial. And he further urges that, if the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals be right, it is not sufficiently comprehensive to serve as a guide to the court and the parties upon another trial. The plaintiffs insist that the judgments in the District Court were right and should be affirmed.
Criticism is made of the complaints. As presented in the state court they fully met the requirements of the local Code, Rev. Laws 1912, 5526, and there was no request after the removal into the federal court that they be recast to meet any further requirements prevailing there. Apart from the local Code, each sufficiently stated a cause of action in the nature of ejectment, save as some allegations were wanting in precision and it was left uncertain whether the defendant was in possession. The latter defect was cured by an affirmative statement in the answer that the defendant was in possession. Texas & New Orleans R. R. Co. v. Miller, 221 U.S. 408, 416 , 31 S. Sup. Ct. 534. If the other defects embarrassed the defendant he should have interposed a timely objection, which doubtless would have resulted in appropriate amendments. Instead, he permitted the matter to pass until the trial was in progress and then sought to obtain some advantage from it. This he could not do; by his failure to make timely objection the defects had been waived. We here dispose of a related question by saying that, in our opinion, the [252 U.S. 286, 291] complaints, with the answers, put in issue the validity of the lode locations, including the requisite mineral discovery.
At all the times mentioned the title was in a sense affected by an outstanding contract, executed by the original locators, which invested Thatcher and Forman with a right to a specified share in the output or proceeds of the claim, and possibly with a right to have it worked and thereby made productive. The contract was not recorded, but this is not material, for the contract was good between the parties and no subsequent purchaser is calling it in question. See Rev. Laws 1912, 1038-1040. Unlike Thatcher, Forman had no interest in the claim other than under this contract. He did not join in filing the adverse claim or in bringing the suit, but with the court's approval came in as a plaintiff before the trial. We think his interest [252 U.S. 286, 292] was not such as to make him an essential party to the adverse claim or to the suit, and yet was such as to make him an admissible party to either. Of course the acts of those having the title in filing the adverse claim and bringing the suit inured to his benefit. And had they proceeded in his absence to a judgment in their favor the same would have been true of it. But this does not prove that he could not be admitted as a plaintiff. He had an interest-a real interest-in the maintenance and protection of the claim which was the subject of the suit, and in view of the liberal provisions of the local statute, Rev. Laws 1912, 4998, 5000, we think the court did not err in allowing him to come in as a plaintiff. It is not asserted that his presence was prejudicial to the defendant and we perceive no ground for thinking it could have been.
As respects the Homestake placer, Murray Scott and John J. Healey were the original locators and the title was still in them when the adverse claim was filed and when the suit was begun, unless there be merit in the defendant's contention that Scott's interest had then passed to others under attachment proceedings and that Healey's interest had then passed to his wife. Neither branch of the contention is, in our opinion, well grounded. The attachment proceedings, although commenced before the adverse claim was filed, did not result in a transfer of Scott's title until after the present suit was begun. The purported conveyance of Healey's interest to his wife, to which the defendant directs attention, recites that it was made upon a consideration paid in money at the time, and this is in no wise explained. There is no evidence that the consideration was paid out of any separate property of the wife, or that the conveyance was intended as a gift to her, or that she ever listed the subject of the conveyance as her separate property. In these circumstances, according to the laws of the state, the Healey interest was community property, of which the husband had the 'entire [252 U.S. 286, 293] management and control' and the 'absolute power of disposition.' He could lease or convey it without the wife's concurrence and could sue in respect of it in his name alone. Rev. Laws 1912, 2155-2160; Crow v. Van Sickle, 6 Nev. 146; Lake v. Bender, 18 Nev. 361, 384, 385, 4 Pac. 711, 7 Pac. 74; Adams v. Baker, 24 Nev. 375, 55 Pac. 362; Malstrom v. People's Ditch Co., 32 Nev. 246, 260, 107 Pac. 98.
As to the absence of revenue stamps, it is true that the deeds showing title in some of the plaintiffs-they were produced in evidence over the defendant's objection-were without the stamps required by the Act of October 22, 1914, c. 331, 22, Schedule A, 38 Stat. 762. But this neither invalidated the deeds nor made them inadmissible as evidence. The relevant provisions of that act, while otherwise following the language of earlier acts, do not contain the words of those acts which made such an instrument invalid and inadmissible as evidence while not [252 U.S. 286, 294] properly stamped. Those words were carefully omitted, as will be seen by contrasting sections 6, 11, 12 and 13 of the Act of 1914 with sections 7, 13, 14 and 15 of the Act of 1898, c. 448, 30 Stat. 454. From this and a comparison of the acts in other particulars it is apparent that Congress in the later act departed from its prior practice of making such instruments invalid or inadmissible as evidence while remaining unstamped and elected to rely upon other means of enforcing this stamp provision, such as the imposition of money penalties, fines and imprisonment. The decisions upon which the defendant relies arose under the earlier acts and were based upon the presence in them of what studiously was omitted from the later one.
As a preliminary to considering other contentions it will be helpful to refer to some features of the mineral land laws, Rev. Stat. 2318 et seq. (Comp. St. 4613 et seq.), about which there can be no controversy, and also to what actually was in dispute at the trial and what not in dispute.
By those laws public lands containing valuable mineral deposits are opened to exploration, occupation and acquisition for mining purposes; and as an inducement to effective exploration the discoverer is given the right to locate a substantial area embracing his discovery, to hold the same and extract the mineral without payment of rent or royalty, so long as he puts one hundred dollars' worth of labor or improvements-called assessment work-upon the claim each year, and to demand and receive a patent at a small sum per acre after he had put five hundred dollars' worth of labor or improvements upon the claim.
In advance of discovery an explorer in actual occupation and diligently searching for mineral1 is treated as a licensee or tenant at will, and no right can be initiated or [252 U.S. 286, 295] acquired through a forcible, fraudulent or clandestine intrusion upon his possession. But if his occupancy be relaxed, or be merely incidental to something other than a diligent search for mineral, and another enters peaceably, and not fraudulently or clandestinely, and makes a mineral discovery and location, the location so made is valid and must be respected accordingly. Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279 , 287; Union Oil Co. v. Smith, 249 U.S. 337 , 346-348, 39 Sup. Ct. 308, and cases cited.
A location based upon discovery gives an exclusive right of possession and enjoyment, is property in the fullest sense, is subject to sale and other forms of disposal, and so long as it is kept alive by performance of the required annual assessment work prevents any adverse location of the land. Gwillim v. Donnellman, 115 U.S. 45, 49 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. 1110; Swanson v. Sears, 224 U.S. 180 , 32 Sup. Ct. 455.
Location is the act or series of acts whereby the boundaries of the claim are marked, etc., but it confers no right in the absence of discovery, both being dessential to a valid claim. Waskey v. Hammer, 223 U.S. 85, 90 , 91 S., 32 Sup. Ct. 187; Beals v. Cone, 27 Colo. 473, 484, 495, 62 Pac. 948, 83 Am. St. Rep. 92; Round Mountain Mining Co. v. Round Mountain Sphinx Mining Co., 36 Nev. 543, 560, 138 Pac. 71; New England Oil Co. v. Congdon, 152 Cal. 211, 213, 92 Pac. 180. Nor does assessment work take the place of discovery, for the requirement relating to such work is in the nature of a condition subsequent to a perfected and valid claim and has 'nothing to do with locating or holding a claim before discovery.' Union Oil Co. v. Smith, supra, 249 U.S. 350 , 39 Sup. Ct. 311. In practice discovery usually precedes location, and the statute treats it as the initial act. But in the absence of an intervening right it is no objection that the usual and statutory order is reversed. In such a case the location becomes effective from the date of discovery; but in the presence of an intervening right it must remain of no effect. Creede & Cripple Creek Mining Co. v. Uinta Tunnel Mining Co., 196 U.S. 337 , 348-351, 25 Sup. Ct. 266, and cases cited; Union Oil Co. v. Smith, supra, 249 U.S. 347 , 39 Sup. Ct. 308.
When an application for a patent to mineral land is presented at the local land office and an adverse claim is filed in response to the notice required by the statute (section 2325[Comp. St. 4622]) further proceedings upon the application must be suspended to await the determination by a court of competent jurisdiction of the question whether either party, and, if so, which, has the exclusive right to the possession arising from a valid and subsisting location. A suit appropriate to the occasion must be brought by the adverse claimant, and in that suit each party is deemed an [252 U.S. 286, 297] actor and must show his own title, for the suit is 'in aid of the land department.' If neither establishes the requisite title the judgment must so declare. Rev. Stat. 2326 (Comp. St. 4623); Act March 3, 1881, c. 140, 21 Stat. 505(Comp. St. 4625); Jackson v. Roby, 109 U.S. 440 , 3 Sup. Ct. 301; Perego v. Dodge, 163 U.S. 160, 167 , 16 S. Sup. Ct. 971; Brown v. Gurney, 201 U.S. 184, 190 , 26 S. Sup. Ct. 509; Healey v. Rupp, 37 Colo. 25, 28, 86 Pac. 1015; Tonopah Fraction Mining Co. v. Douglas (C. C.) 123 Fed. 936, 941. If final judgment be given in favor of either party-whether the applicant for patent or the adverse claimant-he may file in the land office a certified copy of the judgment and then will be entitled, as respects the area awarded to him, to go forward with the patent proceedings and to have the judgment recognized and respected as a binding adjudication of his exclusive right to the possession. Rev. Stat. 2336 (Comp. St. 4644); Richmond Mining Co. v. Rose, 114 U.S. 576, 585 , 5 S. Sup. Ct. 1055; Wolverton v. Nichols, 119 U.S. 485, 489 , 7 S. Sup. Ct. 289; Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Campbell, 135 U.S. 286, 299 , 10 S. Sup. Ct. 765; Last Chance Mining Co. v. Tyler Mining Co., 157 U.S. 683, 694 , 15 S. Sup. Ct. 733, 39 L. d . 859; Perego v. Dodge, supra; Clipper Mining Co. v. Eli Mining Co., 194 U.S. 220, 232 , 24 S. Sup. Ct. 632.
As respects the initiation and working of the placer [252 U.S. 286, 300] claims, the plaintiffs' evidence indicated that the locators entered openly, made placer discoveries, performed the requisite acts of location, excavated several shafts in the 'wash' from 35 to 57 feet in depth, ran drifts from the bottom along the bedrock, and mined a considerable amount of placer gold; and that these acts covered a period of between two and three months. None of this was contradicted; and there was no evidence that the locators met with any resistance or resorted to any hostile, fraudulent or deceptive acts. But there was evidence of such ownership of buildings, comparatively recent prospecting, and maintenance of a watchman, on the part of the lode claimant5 as made it a fair question whether he was in actual possession when the placer locators entered. That he was in possession of the buildings and the ground where they stood was made certain, but that he had any actual possession beyond that was reasonably debatable under the evidence.
The buildings were all on the same claim and covered only a part of it. One was a mill formerly in use but then dismantled and stripped of its machinery. All had been used in connection with mining operations upon other claims, but the operations had then been suspended. The buildings were not disturbed by the placer locators, nor was there any attempt to appropriate them. A watchman was in charge, but so far as appears he made no objection to what was done. Although a witness for the defendant and in his employ, he was not interrogated upon this point. Of course, ownership of the buildings did not in itself give the lode claimant any right in the land or prevent others from entering peaceably and in good faith to avail themselves of privileges accorded by the mineral land laws; but the presence of the buildings [252 U.S. 286, 301] and his relation to them did have a bearing upon the question of actual possession-a pronounced bearing as respects the place where the building stood and a lesser bearing as respects the other ground.
Were we less satisfied than we are upon the point we should hesitate to disturb the concurring conclusions of those judges. [252 U.S. 286, 303] It is urged that the court erred in not holding that the placer claimants had admitted the validity of one of the lode locations by relocating the ground as a lode claim. A short statement of what was done will show, as we think, that it did not involve any such admission. After the placer claimants made their placer discovery a representative of theirs posted on the ground a notice stating that they had relocated it as a lode claim. The next day he substituted another notice stating that they had located it as a placer claim. The first notice did not accord with their discovery and the other did. Nothing was done or claimed under the first and all the subsequent steps were in accord with the other. Evidently the first was posted by mistake and the other as the true notice. No one was misled by the mistake and it was promptly corrected. In these circumstances, the first notice was of no effect and no admission could be predicated of it. Zeiger v. Dowdy, 13 Ariz. 331, 114 Pac. 565.
The further objection is made that no probative force was given to recitals of discovery in the recorded notices of location of the lode claims. The notices were admitted in evidence and no instruction was asked or given respecting the recitals. In one nothing is said about discovery, and what is said in the other two is meager. But, passing this, the objection is not tenable. The general rule is that such recitals are mere ex parte self-serving declarations on the part of the locators, and not evidence of discovery. Creede & Cripple Creek Mining Co. v. Uinta Tunnel Mining Co., 196 U.S. 337, 352 , 25 S. Sup. Ct. 266; Lindley on Mines (3d Ed.) 392; Mutchmor v. McCarty, 149 Cal. 603, 607, 87 Pac. 85; Strepey v. Stark, 7 Colo. 614, 619, 5 Pac. 111; Magruder v. Oregon & California R. R. Co., 28 Land Dec. 174. This rule is recognized and applied in Nevada. Fox v. Myers, 29 Nev. 169, 186, 86 Pac. 793; Round Mountain Mining Co. v. Round Mountain Sphinx Mining Co., 36 Nev. 543, 560, 138 Pac. 71.
Complaint is made because the defendant was not permitted [252 U.S. 286, 304] on the cross-examination of a witness for the plaintiffs to show the contents of certain assay reports. In his examination in chief the witness told of taking twelve samples from openings made by the lode claimant in the lode locations and of having the samples assayed. Seven of the assay reports were produced at the plaintiffs' request and put in evidence. They attributed to one sample a mineral value of sixty-three cents per ton and to the other six only a trace of mineral. In cross-examining the witness the defendant called for the remaining reports or their contents, but the plaintiffs objected and the objection was sustained. In other respects the cross-examination proceeded without restriction and included a full interrogation of the witness about the points from which each of the twelve samples was taken. This interrogation disclosed that one of the reports put in evidence covered a sample taken from an opening made after the location of the placer claims; and because of this that report was stricken out at the defendant's request and with the plaintiffs' consent. Near the close of the trial the court recalled its prior ruling and announced another more favorable to the defendant. The witness was then recalled and, after some further examination, three of the remaining reports were put in evidence. They attributed to one sample a mineral value of one dollar and thirty-four cents per ton and to the other two only a trace of mineral. Thus of the twelve reports all but two were produced. These two, like the one stricken out, covered samples taken from openings made after the placer claims were located. The defendant did not call for them when the witness was recalled or reserve any exception to the new ruling, and it is more than inferable from the record that he acquiesced in it. Of course, there is no merit in the present complaint.
The defendant, conceiving that the section could be invoked in the absence of a mineral discovery, requested the court to instruct the jury that if the lode claimant held and worked the lode claims for a period of two years-the local prescriptive period for adverse possession, Rev. Laws 1912, 4951-before the placer claims were initiated, such holding and working were the full equivalent of all that was essential to the validity of the lode claims, including discovery. That request was refused and others were then presented which differed from it only in that they treated discovery as essential by coupling it with holding and working. These were also refused, but no complaint is made of this-obviously because the jury were told that under the evidence the lode claims should be regarded as valid, if only the requisite discoveries were made at any time before the placer claims were initiated. The jury, as we have seen, found as matter of fact that there was no such discovery.
The effect which must be given to section 2332, Rev. St., in circumstances such as are here disclosed-whether it substitutes something else in the place of discovery or cures its absence-is the matter we have to consider. That the section is a remedial provision and designed to make proof of holding and working for the prescribed period the legal equivalent of proof of acts of location, recording and transfer, and thereby to relieve against possible loss or [252 U.S. 286, 306] destruction of the usual means of establishing such acts, is attested by repeatd rulings in the land department and the courts. But those rulings give no warrant for thinking that it disturbs or qualifies important provisions of the mineral land laws, such as deal with the character of the land that may be taken, the discovery upon which a claim must be founded, the area that may be included in a single claim, the citizenship of claimants, the amount that must be expended in labor or improvements to entitle the claimant to a patent, and the purchase price to be paid before the patent can be issued. Indeed, the rulings have been to the contrary.
The views entertained by the courts in the mining regions are shown in Harris v. Equator Mining Co. (C. C.) 8 [252 U.S. 286, 307] Fed. 863, 866, where the court ruled that holding and working a claim for a long period were the equivalent of necessary acts of location, but added that 'this, of course, was subject to proof of a lode in the Ocean Wave ground, of which there was evidence'; in Humphreys v. Idaho Gold Mines Co., 21 Idaho, 126, 140, 120 Pac. 823, 40 L. R. A. (N. S.) 817, where the section was held to obviate the necessity for proving the posting, etc., of a location notice, but not to dispense with proof of discovery; in Upton v. Santa Rita Mining Co., 14 N. M. 96, 89 Pac. 275, where the court held that the section should be construed in connection with other provisions of the mineral land laws, and that it did not relieve a claimant coming within its terms from continuing to do the assessment work required by another section; and in Anthony v. Jillson, 83 Cal. 296, 23 Pac. 419, where the section was held not to change the class who may acquire mineral lands or to dispense with proof of citizenship.
The defendant places some reliance upon the decisions of this court in Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279 , 26 .L. Ed. 735, and Reavis v. Fianza, 215 U.S. 16 , 30 Sup. Ct. 1, but neither contains any statement or suggestion that the section dispenses with a mineral discovery or cures its absence. The opinion in the first shows affirmatively that there was a discovery and that in the other shows that the controversy, although of [252 U.S. 286, 308] recent origin, related to 'gold mines' which had been worked for mn y years.
[ Footnote 1 ] As to the status of an explorer or locator on oil-bearing land in advance of discovery, see the special provisions in Act June 25, 1910, c. 421, 2, 30 Stat. 847 (Comp. St. 4524), and Act March 2, 1911, c. 201, 36 Stat. 1015 (Comp. St. 4637).
[ Footnote 2 ] Clipper Mining Co. v. Eli Mining Co., 194 U.S. 220, 229 , 24 S. Sup. Ct. 632; Webb v. American Asphaltum Co., 157 Fed. 203, 84 C. C. A. 651; San Francisco Chemical Co. v. Duffield, 201 Fed. 830, 120 C. C. A. 160; Harry Lode Mining Claim, 41 Land Dec. 403.
[ Footnote 3 ] Lindley on Mines, 3d Ed.
[ Footnote 5 ] The lode claimant at that time was either the liquidator of the Glasgow & Western Exploration Company or the company itself.

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