CO Code § 34-43-106 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 34 - Mineral Resources|Article 43 - Claims - How Located|§ 34-43-106. Manner of Locating Claims

  Before filing such location certificate, the discoverer shall locate his claim by:   Sinking a discovery shaft upon the lode to the depth of at least ten feet from the lowest part of the rim of such shaft at the surface, or deeper if necessary, to show a well-defined crevice;    Posting at the point of discovery on the surface a plain sign or notice, containing the name of the lode, the name of the locator, and the date of discovery;    Marking the surface boundaries of the claim.       The locator of any mining claim, in lieu of sinking a discovery shaft as required in paragraph   of subsection (1) of this section, may at his option, within the period allowed for the recording of the location certificate as provided in section 34-43-103, file in the office of the county clerk and recorder of the county in which such claim is located, a map which shall be attached to said location certificate, which map shall be of a scale of approximately one inch equals five hundred feet, prepared from an actual field survey and shall show the following:    The legal subdivisions of the land upon which the claim is located, if such land is surveyed;    The claim pattern with courses and distances of the boundary lines, and reference to the nearest section or quarter-section corner of the public land survey, if surveyed, or reference to a permanent monument, if unsurveyed, by which the location of the claim on the ground can be readily and accurately ascertained.       The owner of any mining claim located prior to April 8, 1955, may avail himself of the provisions of this subsection (3) and subsection (2) of this section by preparing and filing with the county clerk and recorder of the county in which the claim is situated an amended location certificate with a map as provided in subsection (2) of this section within one hundred eighty days from April 8, 1955.     (a) The name and address of the discoverer of the claim;   History. Source: L. 1874: P. 186, § 5. G.L. § 1815. G.S. § 2401. R.S. 08: § 4197. C.L. § 3283. CSA: C. 110, § 173. CRS 53: § 92-22-6. L. 55: P. 603, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 92-22-6. History. Source: L. 1874: P. 186, § 5. G.L. § 1815. G.S. § 2401. R.S. 08: § 4197. C.L. § 3283. CSA: C. 110, § 173. CRS 53: § 92-22-6. L. 55: P. 603, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 92-22-6.    ANNOTATION   Analysis     I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.    II. DISCOVERY SHAFT.    III. POSTING SIGN.    IV. MAP OF CLAIM.     I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.   Law reviews. For article, “The Requirements for a Discovery Excavation in Colorado”, see 32 Dicta 77 (1955). For article, “The Acquisition of Uranium Mining Rights”, see 32 Dicta 167 (1955). For article, “Highlights of the 1955 Colorado Legislative Session -- Mining”, see 28 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 56 (1955).   Discovery of vein or lode is essential prerequisite to location; there is no valid location without it. Buck v. Jones, 18 Colo. App. 250, 70 P. 951 (1902).   Discovery made after staking and recording will inure to benefit of locator, but only as to the date of such discovery. Healey v. Rupp, 37 Colo. 25 , 86 P. 1015 (1906).   Order of time in which the several acts of location are performed is not of essence under this section: It is immaterial that a discovery is made subsequent to the completion of the acts of location; provided that, all necessary acts are taken before intervening rights of third parties accrue. Brewster v. Shoemaker, 28 Colo. 176 , 63 P. 309 (1900); Treasury Tunnel, Mining & Reduction Co. v. Boss, 32 Colo. 27 , 74 P. 888 (1903).   Claim not lost by forcible eviction. Where a claimant was forcibly prevented from reentering the boundaries of his claim and his posted notice was removed and where he was unable to prepare a certificate for record, the claimant did not lost his right to perfect the location against the claims of third parties. Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U.S. 527, 5 S. Ct. 560, 28 L. Ed. 1113 (1885).   Presumption of validity of mining claim location certificate. Schuman v. Venard, 110 Colo. 487 , 136 P.2d 289 (1943).   Discovery of uranium by instruments not a mineral discovery. Smaller v. Leach, 136 Colo. 297 , 316 P.2d 1030 (1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 936, 78 S. Ct. 777, 2 L. Ed. 2d 812 (1958).   Applied in McMillen v. Ferrum Mining Co., 32 Colo. 38 , 74 P. 461, 105 Am. St. R. 64 (1903).   II. DISCOVERY SHAFT.   Crevice, as employed in this section, clearly means a mineral-bearing vein. Terrible Mining Co. v. Argentine Mining Co., 89 F. 583 (D. Colo. 1883 ); McCaig v. Bryan, 10 Colo. 309 , 15 P. 413 (1887); Van Zandt v. Argentine Mining Co., 8 F. 725 (D. Colo. 1881 ), aff'd, 122 U.S. 478, 7 S. Ct. 1356, 30 L. Ed. 1140 (1887); Beals v. Cone, 27 Colo. 473 , 62 P. 948 (1900), appeal dismissed, 188 U.S. 184, 23 S. Ct. 275, 47 L. Ed. 435 (1903).   Discovery shaft must expose vein upon which location is based, or at least disclose one; therefore, the mere discovery of some other vein within the limits of the claim cannot supply the absence of the one required to be exposed in the discovery shaft. Beals v. Cone, 27 Colo. 473 , 62 P. 948 (1900), appeal dismissed, 188 U.S. 184, 23 S. Ct. 275, 47 L. Ed. 435 (1903).   Otherwise location not valid. Where a locator relocated an abandoned mining claim, sinking his discovery shaft and posting notices several hundred feet from the discovery shaft of the abandoned location and filed his certificate designating his discovery as in the discovery shaft sunk by him, and he failed to make a discovery of mineral in the shaft sunk by him, the mere fact that he knew of the existence of a vein on the claim that had been discovered in the discovery shaft of the abandoned claim would not make his location valid. McMillen v. Ferrum Mining Co., 32 Colo. 38 , 74 P. 461 (1903), appeal dismissed, 197 U.S. 343, 25 S. Ct. 533, 49 L. Ed. 784 (1905).   Sinking second discovery shaft off patented claim is valid location, although no new notice is posted. A mining claim was located and all the steps necessary to perfect such location were regular except that the discovery shaft was sunk and notice was posted upon a prior patented claim. Before the intervention of any other rights, the locator learned that his discovery shaft was on patented ground and sank another shaft and discovered mineral on the same vein within 100 feet of the old shaft but clear of the patented claim, and did the necessary discovery and assessment work but did not post any notice at the new discovery shaft nor file any additional certificate of location nor change the boundaries of the original location. It is held that the location was good and valid as against a conflicting claim located subsequent to the second and valid discovery of mineral. Treasury Tunnel, Mining & Reduction Co. v. Boss, 32 Colo. 27 , 74 P. 888, 105 Am. St. R. 60 (1903).   III. POSTING SIGN.   Purpose of posting signs. One object of the requirement that the discoverer shall, before filing his location certificate, post at the point of discovery a notice is that those wishing to make subsequent locations may thereby be advised of the ground already appropriated, and this serves to hold his ground until his location is perfected within the statutory time. Treasury Tunnel, Mining & Reduction Co. v. Boss, 32 Colo. 27 , 74 P. 888 (1903); Emerson v. Akin, 26 Colo. App. 40, 140 P. 481 (1914).   Notices need not be maintained or replaced. It is a well-known fact that the boundaries as marked upon the ground, and the notices thereupon posted, within a very short time often disappear, and there is no requirement in the law that they shall be maintained or replaced by the locator in order to keep his location good. Treasury Tunnel, Mining & Reduction Co. v. Boss, 32 Colo. 27 , 74 P. 888 (1903).   Notice held sufficient. A notice written upon a piece of paper, folded so that no part of the writing appeared, laid upon a stone and held in place by another stone, is sufficient, though no other notice so far as appears was ever posted. Emerson v. Akin, 26 Colo. App. 40, 140 P. 481 (1914).   Notice need not be posted at point of second discovery where location certificate is amended. Where a locator of a mining claim made a second and valid discovery of mineral and amended his location certificate so as to base his location on said second discovery, it was not necessary to post notice at the point of second discovery. McMillen v. Ferrum Mining Co., 32 Colo. 38 , 74 P. 461 (1903), appeal dismissed, 197 U.S. 343, 25 S. Ct., 533, 49 L. Ed. 784 (1905).   IV. MAP OF CLAIM.   Purpose of requiring filing of map with location certificate within specific period is to ensure notice of claims and to establish priorities: however, strict compliance with location certificate requirements is not required to locate a claim. Dodge v. Amrine, 42 Colo. App. 288, 596 P.2d 71 (1979).   Substantial compliance with this section is sufficient to locate claim. Dodge v. Amrine, 42 Colo. App. 288, 596 P.2d 71 (1979).   Contents of location certificate. The location certificate need only contain sufficient information to enable a reasonably intelligent person to locate the claim on the ground by referring to the location certificate and the marked boundaries. Dodge v. Amrine, 42 Colo. App. 288, 596 P.2d 71 (1979).   Designation of permanent monument satisfactory where no public reference point located. Where there is no evidence that any public reference points can be located, designation of a permanent monument is an appropriate method of satisfying the description requirements. Dodge v. Amrine, 42 Colo. App. 288, 596 P.2d 71 (1979).   Filing of one map locating several contiguous claims permitted. Where a locator seeks to locate several contiguous claims, the requirements of this section are met by filing one map showing all the claims, along with each group of location certificates, so long as a reasonably intelligent person can locate the claim by reference to the location certificate and the map. Dodge v. Amrine, 42 Colo. App. 288, 596 P.2d 71 (1979).