Court Opinion

ID: 9865318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 16:31:34.421142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:38:27.476575
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing

Mr. Justice Hilliard
dissenting.
Defendants in error, proceeding April 17, 1941, sued in ejectment to oust plaintiffs in error from a so-called *495unpatented mining claim, the Zip lode, contending that they had been dispossessed of the same by plaintiffs in error, who still withheld the possession from them. Defendants in error claimed ownership by virtue of an alleged recorded location certificate.
Subsequently defendants in error filed a bill of particulars, alleging ownership of the possessory title to the Zip claim “by virtue of discovery and location * * * and by virtue of full compliance with the laws of the United States and of the State of Colorado in relation thereto.” These allegations are denied by plaintiffs in error, who allege that the land in question is a parcel of their Gold Coin Fraction Lode Mining Claim, duly “located on the public domain of the United States.”
The record discloses that in the early history of the Zip claim an ore reduction mill was erected upon the property, which defendant in error Venard had acquired on execution sale; that this mill was subsequently dismantled and taken off of the claim by Venard; that defendants in error sold the Zip claim to Mining Associates, Inc., in 1939, and that part of the purchase price was paid; that the officers of this company admit they made the purchase to avoid any controversy over their right to use the Sunshine tunnel for the operation of the Sunshine mine, the portal of which tunnel is on the edge of the Zip claim; that Mining Associates, Inc., erected a small blacksmith shop at the portal of this tunnel for their exclusive use in the operation of the Sunshine mine and that they knew of no vein or mineral on the Zip claim at the time they made the contract in question, or at any other time; that later Mining Associates, Inc., gave up their lease on the Sunshine mine and forfeited the payments they had made to defendants in error for the purchase of the Zip claim; that shortly thereafter defendants in error dismantled the blacksmith shop for its salvage value; that subsequently plaintiffs in error obtained a block lease on the Sunshine mine; and that defendants in error thereupon demanded *496that plaintiffs in error purchase their Zip claim for the sum of $500.00, as a condition precedent to operating their lease through the Sunshine tunnel.
The undisputed facts definitely demonstrate, as I view it, the sham character of the purported location of the Zip claim. I am persuaded from the record that holding the Zip claim on the part of defendants in error, was purely for selfish exploitation purposes, and with no intention whatever on their part of compliance with the terms of the federal and Colorado statutes authorizing such locations. It is clear, as I shall show, that since defendants in error never made a “discovery” they had no valid location, and therefore it is conclusive that their exactions and demands upon plaintiffs in error were unlawful and virtually amounted to attempts to extort.
In view of the fact that Mining Associates, Inc., erected the blacksmith shop to facilitate their own operation of the Sunshine mine, and in view of the further fact that the blacksmith shop was dismantled by defendants in error after the company surrendered the property to them, it seems conclusive that there never was any intention on the part of the parties involved that the blacksmith shop would benefit the Zip claim. It is elementary that improvements and work must be for the benefit of the claim to satisfy the requirements of the law as to annual labor. I am not in accord with the holding of the trial court, approved here, that the erection of the blacksmith shop “satisfied the provisions of the law with reference to annual assessment work.” Therefore, for the want of discovery and the assessment work the ground was open to location.
The. evidence clearly shows that from the date the Zip location certificate was recorded, up to the time plaintiffs in error made their discovery in January, 1941, no mineral vein had ever been discovered within the confines of the Zip claim; that only desultory work in the guise of annual labor had been done on the Zip claim, prior to 1939, by the extension of a surface tun*497nel through slide rock, without the disclosure of any discovery vein upon the property.
The trial court erred, as I think, proceeding in the absence of proof of discovery of a vein of mineral, as required by law, in finding “that a reasonable presumption exists that the discovery and location of the Zip Lode Mining Claim, * * * was in all respects regular and in accordance with the mining laws.” The trial court admitted in evidence the location certificate to the Zip claim upon the theory that defendants in error thereby submitted such evidence of title as to entitle them to prevail in ejectment. This also was error, as I view it, and these errors are reflected in the court opinion here.
The proof of recording and marking a claim will not authorize the court to presume a discovery. Smith v. Newell, 86 Fed. 56. It is elementary that subsequent grantees cannot maintain an action in support of a claim that could not have been sustained by the original locator. McMillen v. Ferrum Mining Co., 32 Colo. 38, 74 Pac. 461. A location based on discovery can be made only by the discoverer, or by one who claims under him; and if the discovery fails the location falls with it. Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U.S. 45.
It seems clear, as I conceive, that since the filing of a certificate of location containing an allegation of a discovery is a mere ex parte self-serving declaration on the part of the locators, and not evidence of discovery (Cole v. Ralph, 252 U. S. 286, 303); and since without proof of discovery no location is of any value, nothing emanates from such certificates of location. Moreover, it is clear that until positive proof of discovery is made there can be no presumption which would entitle defendants in error to prevail in ejectment on the claim of color of title by virtue of their certificate of location.
It is indisputable, as I understand, that the statute itself presupposes a discovery, for to “work” a mining claim is to do something toward making it productive, *498such as developing or extracting an ore body after it has been “discovered.” If any other interpretation was put upon the statute it would subject non-mineral land to acquisition as mining claims. In the absence of positive proof of discovery, proof of working or holding and prospecting would not come within the contemplation of congress in the enactment of the statute. Cole v. Ralph, supra, p. 307. The concluding paragraph of the case just cited seems controlling here for the reason that it is said the defendant in that case could receive no benefit under the statute in the absence of a discovery.
“Discovery in all ages and all countries has been regarded as conferring rights or claims to reward. Gamboa, who represented the general thought of his age on this subject, was of the opinion that the discoverer of mines was even more worthy of reward than the inventor of a useful art. Hence, in the mining laws of all civilized countries the great consideration for granting mines to individuals is discovery.” Lindley on Mines (3d ed.) section 335. Text quoted in Creede and Cripple Creek M. & M. Co. v. Uinta T. M. & Co., 196 U.S. 337, 343. “The proof of recording and marking a claim will not authorize the court to presume a discovery.” Lindley, Ibid.
Discovery of mineral is the initial fact. Without that no rights can be acquired. Such discovery must precede the location, or be in advance of intervening rights. Beals v. Cone, 27 Colo. 473, 62 Pac. 948, and numerous decisions of federal and state courts.
The court opinion here, as I understand it, is founded upon erroneous premises, one of which is that there was conflicting evidence as to the validity of the lode location of plaintiffs in error, and particularly as to its discovery. Defendants in error did not challenge plaintiffs in error’s discovery, as I think the record shows. They seem to have rested their case upon the presumption of their own compliance with the mining laws of the United States and of the State of Colorado.
*499Moreover, the evidence conclusively discloses that plaintiffs in error sunk a discovery shaft, and by such shaft opened the extension of the Sunshine vein, from which the Sunshine mine has produced large quantities of valuable ore; also, that the vein disclosed in their discovery shaft contained ore of the value of more than ten dollars a ton. These facts are not controverted; and, as I believe, fully meet the requirements of the law.
Plaintiffs in error, experiencing a feeling of outrage at the demand of $500.00 from them by defendants in error for the use of the Zip claim in their operation of the Sunshine property, investigated the records and had the ground surveyed, from which it appeared that the purported location of the Zip claim was not predicated upon a mineral discovery, as required by law, and that the discovery cut mentioned in the location certificate did not exist and that no vein of any kind had ever been opened up thereon. The circumstances considered, plaintiffs in error were confronted with the alternative of paying what they regarded as tribute to defendants in error, or of making a valid vein discovery and location of their own. Thereupon, they located their Gold Coin Fraction Lode Mining Claim.
The court opinion quotes the “impression” of the trial court, wherein the court said: “My impression is a good deal the impression Mr. Parks has given, that there never has been disclosed a proven mineral of practical value on this claim.” In so far as plaintiffs in error’s rights are concerned, I cannot subscribe to this finding, although as to defendants in error the statement is well justified. Besides, as I understand, it is wrong as a matter of law. Mr. Park’s testimony was to the effect that there was no mineral on the claim in which he would be interested. Such testimony is wholly immaterial. The question involved is not what would interest the witness, but what would validate a lode location. The evidence adduced by plaintiffs in error shows conclusively that mineral of the value of more than ten dollars *500was discovered in their discovery shaft. The evidence adequately meets the most critical requirements of the statute to validate a lode location. Moreover, “practical value” of the mineral in a discovery is not the test. The courts have ruled that an appreciable value which would induce a prudent person to develop the claim is sufficient. A value of one ounce of silver has been held sufficient.
In Cole v. Ralph, supra, at page 296, it is said: “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 * * *.” Citing, Warkey v. Hamer, 223 U.S. 85, 90-91; Beals v. Cone, 27 Colo. 473, 484, 495, 62 Pac. 948. The court there, referring to holding and working a claim for a long period, commenting further on the requirements of the statute, said that such action obviated the necessity for proving the posting of a location notice, etc., but that it did not dispense with the proof of discovery. “Discovery is made the source of title, and development, or working, the condition of the continuance of that act.” Halleck’s De Fooz on the Law of Mines, as quoted in section 335, 2 Lindley on Mines (3ded.).
Clearly, as I think, defendants in error failed to show “Discovery” in the first instance, and neglected assessment work in the second instance. Not only are they void of works, most essential, but of the grace of motivating faith. They should not enjoy writs calculated to protect them in their faithless and workless possession.
Since the petition for rehearing, which I favor, is to be denied, I dissent as originally.