Case Name: WILLIAM F. BLAKE, Appellant, v. THE BUTTE SILVER MINING COMPANY, Respondent
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1880-06
Citations: 2 Utah 54
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM F. BLAKE, Appellant, v. THE BUTTE SILVER MINING COMPANY, Respondent.
Judges: EmeesoN, J., concurred.
Reporter: Utah Reports
Volume: 2
Pages: 54–63

Head Matter:
WILLIAM F. BLAKE, Appellant, v. THE BUTTE SILVER MINING COMPANY, Respondent.
1. Vested Rights in Mineral Lands. — One who makes a valid location of a mineral lode or ledge and complies with, all the mining laws, both local and National, obtains a vested right to such property, of which he cannot be divested.
2. Mining Acts of 1866 and 1872. — Under the law as it stood prior to May 10, 1872, each locator was entitled to but one vein, whereas under the act of Congress of May 10,1872, he is entitled to all veins having the top or apex within his surface linos.
8. Mining Patent under Location Made Prior to Act of May 10, 1872. — A patent of a mining claim, based upon a location made under the act of 1866, grants the Government title to the surface ground mentioned therein, subject to the right of other locators to follow any other vein or lode legally held under locations made prior to the act of May 10, 1872.
4. Rigiit to Follow Unpatented Vein into Patented Ground.— The owner of a vein located prior to May 10, 1872, and who was in the possession thereof at such date, has the right to follow his vein within the patented surface ground of another.
Appeal from the Third Judicial District Court.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Tilford & Hagan and J. R. McBride, for appellant.
Only one point is involved herein.
Can the owner of a vein, located prior to May 10, 1872, and who was in the possession thereof at such date, follow his vein ’ within the surface ground of another, even though such surface ground be patented?
The Butte Patent was issued October 17, 1874, and, as shown by “ Exhibit A,” crossed the north end of the Oregon Mining Claim. There is no dispute as to the fact that the Oregon vein lies wholly within the side lines of the Oregon location, but in following this vein to the end lines of his location, the appellant must pass under or into the patented ground of the respondent.
Appellant submits that no patent can grant larger or more extended rights or privileges than are granted by the statute under which such patent is issued.
Both locations in controversy were located prior to the passage of the act of May 10, 1872. The patent was issued after said date.
We submit that by the terms of the patent itself, appellant is entitled to his vein within the surface ground of the Butte Patent. Statutes at Large, vol. 14, p. 252; same, §§ 3 and 4.
By section 3, of the act of 1866, no patent can be issued for more than one vein. Act of 1866, § 3.
The act of May 10, 1872, reserves all rights or interests in mining property acquired under existing laws. Act of 1872, § 16.
Section 14, of the same act, gives an instance of what was intended when two or more veins intersect, etc. Surely they must intersect or unite under the surface ground of one of the claimants. Act 1872, § 14; Same, § 9; Same, § 3.
As early as June 10,1872, the Commissioner of the General Land Office held that the right of a party to a vein claimed adversely on May 10, 1872, was in no way impaired by the act of that date. Copp, pp. 83, 81, 27-29; Robertson v. Smith, 1 Mon. 110; Chapman v. Toy Long, 3 Sawyer, 135.
Bennett <& Ha/rkness, for respondent.
The Butte was located August 19, 1870, and patented October 17, 1871.
The Oregon was located September 20, 1871, and is not patented.
The map shows the relative locations, and respondents were working within the Butte patented grounds.
There is no opening on the vein, showing an apex in the Oregon claim westerly of its discovery point, but for the purposes of the appeal the apex is assumed to run westerly from the discovery point on the center line of the Oregon.
The conflict area was never located, possessed or worked as part of the Oregon claim, hence the vein in that ground cannot be held without the surface inclosing it at the apex.
The clause in the patent, to which reference is made in appellant’s brief, is neither an exception nor reservation, and effects nothing by its own force, but only refers to some contingent adverse right, which the commissioner supposed might exist under his construction of the law. If it was in form a good exception or reservation, it would still be inoperative because there is no subject matter to apply it to — no vein legally held by other parties under a location made prior to' May 10, 1872.

Opinion:
BoeemaN, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court.
The contest in this case is between the Oregon Mining Claim and the Butte Mining Claim. Both locations were made prior to the enactment of the law of 1872, respecting mining locations. The Butte was prior in time, as it was located on the 9th day of August, 1870, and the Oregon was located on the 20th day of September, 1871. The Butte Claim was afterwards patented, and against the procuring of which patent the Oregon claimants did not protest. The sur face grounds of these claims conflict, but the Butte Lode and the Oregon Lode are separate and distinct veins. The Oregon Lode extends within the boundaries of the Butte location, and hence the respondent lays claim thereto. The respondent began work upon the Oregon Lode, but within the boundaries of the Butte Patent. Thereupon the appellant obtained a temporary injunction, which, upon motion of respondent, was dissolved. From the order dissolving the injunction this appeal is brought.
A person who makes a valid location of a mineral ledge or lode, and complies with the laws and the local mining rules in respect thereto, obtains a vested right to such property, of which he cannot be divested.
The act of the 10th of May, 1872, says " that nothing contained in this act shall be construed to impair, in any way, rights or interests in mining property acquired under existing laws." 17 U. S. Statutes at Large, p. 96, § 16; U. S. Bev. Stat., § 2344.
The law of 1872 says further, that Mining claims " heretofore located shall be governed as to length along the vein or lode by the customs, regulations and laws in force at the date of their locations." 17 U. S. Statutes at Large, p. 96, § 2; U. S. Bev. Stats., § 2320.
Under the law as it stood prior to the act of 10th May, 1872, there is no question as to what the relative rights of the parties would have been, for under that law each locator was entitled to but 'one vein, whereas under the law of 1872 he is entitled to all veins having the top or apex inside his surface lines. The only question is as to whether the law of 1872 changes' these relative rights.
The application for patent was based upon a location made under the law of 1866, which gave the party but one vein, and prior to the law of 1872 the rights of parties claiming other veins could not have been affected by any patent that the applicant could obtain. These rights of plaintiff to this separate vein being, by the last section of the act of 1872, as we have seen, expressly reserved and protected from any barm by that act, it was not necessary that he should protest. Had he protested, he could have secured no more than is secured to him by the law without his protesting.
, Under the law of 1866 he had the right to the full length of his claim as located along the vein. As that right is not impaired in any way by the law of 1872, the appellant still has that right.
Nor do we see that it was necessary that he should have done work on that part of his vein embraced within the surface boundaries of the respondent. It is not denied that this portion of the vein was within his location claim. He had made his location, according to law and mining rules, and the doing of work upon any part thereof, and being in possession thereof when such work was done, and claiming to the full extent of his location, would be sufficient. The appellants, therefore, had under the statute the right to that part of the Oregon Lode' which entered the land of respondent, and the respondent had no right whatever thereto.
But the patent itself, which the respondent sets up as the basis of his action, does not purport to grant the Oregon vein to respondent, but it says that the grant is " subject to the right of other parties to follow any other vein or lode, with its dips, angles and variations, legally held under a location made prior to such date."
If this provision had been left out of the patent, the position of the parties would not have been affected, as their rights are governed by the law. But when a patent is presented which, on its face negatives the claim of the patentee to other valid locations, it would seem that respondent's want of title to any such other vein was clearly manifest.
For the reasons given, we think that the order of the court below should be reversed with costs.
EmeesoN, J., concurred.