Clearwater Short-Line Ry. v. San Garde
| Decision Date | 11 May 1900 |
| Citation | 7 Idaho 106,61 P. 137 |
| Parties | CLEARWATER SHORT LINE RAILWAY v. SAN GARDE |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
MINING-LOCATION NOTICE.-A location notice of a mining claim, which fails to give the direction of the initial point, or permanent monument to which it is attempted to tie the location, from the point of discovery, is void under the statutes of Idaho Brown v. Lecan, 4 Idaho 494, 46 P. 660, affirmed.
(Syllabus by the court.)
APPEAL from District Court, Shoshone County.
Reversed and remanded, with directions. Costs to appellant.
James E. Babb, for Appellant.
The Butcher Boy mining location notice, under which, solely defendants claim an interest in the premises in the controversy, was void for each of the following reasons, to wit: It did not give the direction for the distance of six hundred feet from the discovery monument to the mouth of Big Canyon creek, the natural object to which it was attempted to tie the claim. (Brown v. Levan, 4 Idaho 794, 46 P 661.) The affidavit to the notice of location was void, in that it was in the alternative, stating that the affiant was a citizen of the United States, or had declared his intention to become such. (1 Ency. of Pl. & Pr. 221, 222; Hinchey v. Nichols, 72 N.C. 66.)
James W. Reid, for Respondents.
Does the notice sufficiently describe the claim? The reason for a notice and its essentials, and the rules construing the same liberally for the locator, are fully discussed by Mr. Lindley. (1 Lindley on Mines, secs. 350-360; Brady v. Husby, 21 Nev. 453, 33 P. 801; Carter v. Bacigalupi, 83 Cal. 187, 23 P. 361; Gird v. California Oil Co. (Colo. ), 60 F. 531; Book v. Justice Min. Co. (Nev.), 58 F. 106; Cheesman v. Shreeve (Colo.), 40 F. 787; Foxon v. Barnard, 4 F. 702; Garthe v. Hart, 73 Cal. 541, 15 P. 93; Omar v. Soper, 11 Colo. 380, 7 Am. St. Rep. 246, 18 P. 443; Washington etc. R. Co. v. Osborne, 2 Idaho 557, 21 P. 421.)
HUSTON, C. J. Sullivan, J., concurs. Quarles, J., did not sit in the case, and took no part in the decision.
This is an appeal from an order of the district court of Shoshone county refusing to continue until trial an injunction theretofore issued in this action. The facts, in brief, are as follows: The plaintiff is a railway corporation engaged in the construction of a railroad through a portion of Shoshone county. Prior to the ninth day of January, 1899, the plaintiff surveyed the definite line (its proposed) line of railroad over the land in controversy, and on or about the twenty-seventh day of January, 1899, filed with the register of the United States land office at Lewiston, in the state of Idaho (that being the land office for the land district where the land in controversy is located), a profile of its said road located over the said land, for the approval of the secretary of interior, in accordance with the rules and regulations of the department of the interior, under the act of Congress entitled "An act granting to railroads the right of way through the public lands of the United States," approved March 3, 1875. Defendants claim that on the twenty-second day of August, A. D. 1898, they, being citizens of the United States, made a location of a quartz mining claim upon the land in controversy, under and by virtue of a location notice as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial