Court Opinion

ID: 9553734
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:34:03.389336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:32:08.456992
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE BOTTOMLY,
dissenting:
I cannot agree with the holding of the majority herein.
In my opinion there was no valid entry, location or certifi*449cate of location recorded by tbe defendants as required by law at the time plaintiffs entered, posted, excavated, and filed their verified certificate of location as required by the mandatory provisions of our state statutes. Defendants’ certificates of location, being defective and not being recorded as required and not containing the mandatory information as required by R.C.M. 1947, secs. 50-701, and 50-702, should be declared a nullity. Section 50-713 should not apply because rights of third parties had intervened before the statutory requirements were perfected. It would only extend unnecessarily this dissent set forth in detail my further objections to the majority opinion.
MR. JUSTICE ADAIR, dissents.