Baxter Mountain Gold Min. Co. v. Patterson
| Citation | 3 P. 741,3 N.M. 269,1884 -NMSC- 022 |
| Parties | BAXTER MOUNTAIN GOLD MINING CO. v. PATTERSON and others. |
| Decision Date | 03 May 1884 |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
A notice of the location of a mining claim, under the laws of the United States and the territory of New Mexico, which does not describe the limits of the claim by reference to natural objects or permanent monuments, is not sufficient, although it describes the claim as bounded by certain other claims.
Beall Chandler & Hough and W. T. Thornton, for appellants.
W. B Childers, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment entered against the plaintiff and appellant in the district court for Lincoln county at the October term, A. D. 1883. The plaintiff brought its action in ejectment to recover the possession of a certain mining claim known as the "Oro Cash" lode, situated at White Oaks. The only question presented by the record is whether the notice of location, offered in evidence by the plaintiffs in support of their action, was improperly excluded by the court. The notice is as follows:
"Notice is hereby given that the undersigned, having complied with the requirements of chapter six of title thirty-two of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and of the local customs, laws, and regulations, has located 'Oro Cash' lode, ledge, or deposit of mineral bearing rock, situated in White Oaks mining district, county of Lincoln, and territory of New Mexico, and described as follows: Situated on Baxter mountain, west of Baxter gulch; bounded on the west by Homestake lead, on the south end by Silver Cliff claim, on the north end by Rip Van Winkle claim; running (600) six hundred feet in a southerly direction, and (100) one hundred feet in a northerly direction, three hundred feet in width. Discovered November 4, 1880, located November 18, 1880. G. R. NICKEY, Locator.
Attest:
JAMES W. LAWSON.
J. O. NABOURS.
Filed for record this twelfth day of January, A. D. 1881, at 10 o'clock A. M., and duly recorded as above. BEN. H. ELLIS, Recorder.
By WM. O. BURT, Deputy."
Territory of New Mexico, County of Lincoln--ss.: I, S. R. Corbett, probate clerk and ex officio recorder in and for the county of Lincoln, in the territory aforesaid, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the location notice of the 'Oro Cash' mine, as recorded in Book H, page 141, of the mining records of this office.
Counsel for the defendants objected to the introduction of this notice, alleging that it was void for insufficiency as a location notice, and failed to properly describe a mining claim. The court sustained the objection, and to this action an exception was taken; and that is the only question presented for our consideration.
By the statutes of the United States all records of mining claims shall contain the name or names of the locators, the date of the location, and such a description of the claim or claims located, by reference to some natural object or permanent monument, as will identify the claim. By the laws of this territory the locator is required to post upon the claim a notice, which shall contain the name or names of the locators, the date of the location, and such a description of the claim or claims located, by reference to some natural object or permanent monument, as will identify the claim. It will thus be seen that the statutes of the territory, in providing what was to be a sufficient location notice, follows the language of the United States Statutes as to what shall be a necessary description to be inserted in the record of the claim. We are of opinion that the location notice offered in evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs in this case fails to comply with the notice required by the laws of the territory, and that, consequently, the court rightfully refused to permit its introduction as evidence. The purpose of the law is, in our judgment, to require such notice and description of the claim as would enable any person going upon the ground to identify it by means of the references made to natural objects or permanent monuments. We think that the boundary lines of other adjoining claims are neither natural objects or permanent monuments. They are, in fact, imaginary lines which are to be determined by the natural objects or permanent monuments actually existing upon such other claims. Those claims themselves may be well marked and defined by natural objects or permanent monuments, but no reference is made to either in the notice in question in this case. If the notice of location in this case is held to be good, then the court, in effect, will hold that, in order to locate the claim covered by the notice, the person attempting it must make a survey of each of the other claims referred to in it, in order to correctly fix the lines of the claim which is bounded by them. This, in our opinion, cannot have been the intention of the law. It seems clear to us that the natural objects or permanent monuments required by our statute must be such as will enable a person, endeavoring to locate the claim, to correctly make a survey of it by means of the references made to such natural objects or permanent monuments.
The case cited by counsel for appellant, and much relied upon, is the Southern Cross Co. v. Europa Co. 15 Nev. 385. That case bears analogy to this case only because the notice of location, which called for stone monuments at each corner of the claim, also described it as bounded by four other claims. The court sustained the sufficiency of the notice upon the fact that it called for the stone monument on each corner, which, of course, was satisfactory. It in effect decided that these monuments were all that were necessary, for in the opinion the court says:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial