Credo Min. & Smelting Co. v. Highland Min. & Mill. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 August 1899
• Citation: 95 F. 911
• Court: United States Circuit Court, District of Washington
• Parties: CREDO MINING & SMELTING CO. v. HIGHLAND MIN. & MILL. CO.

95 F. 911

CREDO MINING & SMELTING CO. v. HIGHLAND MIN. & MILL. CO.

United States Circuit Court, D. Washington, Eastern Division.

August 4, 1899

Henley Kellam & Lindsley and J. R. McBride, for complainant.

Scott &amp Rosslow and S. R. Stern, for defendant.

HANFORD District Judge.

The complainant claims to be the owner and to be in possession of a quartz-mining claim, called the 'Wee Fraction Lode and Mining Claim,' situated in the Newport mining district Stevens county, state of Washington, which mine was located on the 31st day of October, 1897. The notice of location of said mining claim, as recorded by the county auditor of Stevens county and the recorder of the Newport mining district, is as follows:

'Notice of Quartz Location.

'We, the undersigned, having complied with the local and federal laws, have this day located and do claim fifteen (1,500) hundred linear feet of this lode or ledge of mineral-bearing rock, with six (600) hundred feet in width. Commencing at a post at the west center end marked 'West Center,' thence 300 ft. southerly to a post marked 'southwest Corner,' thence 1,500 ft. easterly to a post marked 'Southeast Corner,' thence 300 ft. northerly to a post marked 'East Center,' thence 300 ft. northerly to a post marked 'Northeast Corner,' thence 1,500 ft. westerly to a post marked 'Northwest Corner,' thence 300 ft. southerly to the place of beginning. Intending to hold and work the same. This to be known as the Wee Fraction, situated in Newport mining district, Stevens Co., state of Washington, and is bounded on the north by the Comstock and on the west by the Key mining claim. Located this, the 31st day of October, 1897.

'Locators: Burt McClarty.

'Geo. Martin. 'James McDonald.'

Said claim overlaps the Comstock quartz-mining claim, which was discovered and located on the 2d day of May, 1896, and includes the development work and improvements thereon, the recorded notice of which claim is as follows:

'Notice of Quartz Location.

'Come Stock.

Washington State, Chewelah Mining District.

'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 the laws of the above state, and the local customs and regulations of said district, and do hereby locate fifteen hundred feet on the Come Stock quartz lode, situate in Stevens county, in the above state and mining district, and further described as follows: Commencing at a post marked 'South' at the easterly corner, from thence three hundred feet i n a northerly direction to the center end post marked 'Southeasterly,' thence three hundred feet in a northerly direction to a corner post marked 'Northeasterly,' thence fifteen hundred feet in a northwesterly direction to a corner post marked 'Northwesterly,' thence three hundred feet in a southerly direction to a center end post marked 'Northwesterly,' thence three hundred feet in a southerly direction to a corner post marked 'Southwesterly,' thence fifteen hundred feet to place of beginning, intending to claim fifteen hundred feet in length and six hundred feet in width for the purpose of mining the same. Claiming the surface rights, privileges, and minerals and other rights granted by existing laws and customs. This claim is further described as follows: About one mile southwesterly from the Marshall Lake and two and one-half miles northerly from Pend d O'Rielle river. Posts are placed at the corner and both ends of center lines. This notice is placed at discovery. Located this 2 day of May, A.D. 1896.

'Witnesses: . . . .

'H. McCullough,

'Thomas W. Norton, Locators.'

'S. R. Savage,

The defendant claims to be the owner of the Comstock mine, and, having made the necessary surveys, caused a notice to be published of its application for a patent, and thereupon the complainant filed its notice of contest, and commenced this suit for the purpose of having a judicial determination of the rights of the parties with respect to the mining ground claimed by each. It is conceded that the Comstock was located and claimed long prior to the first steps taken towards initiating the rights claimed by the complainant, and the disputed questions in the case are whether there was an actual discovery of any vein, or lode, or rock in place bearing any of the precious metals within the boundaries described in the location notice, and marked on the ground prior to the location of the Wee Fraction claim, and whether the notice of location of the Comstock, which is above set forth, fulfills the requirements of the laws with respect to the description of the exact situation and boundaries of the claim. The complainant asserts that the Comstock location is void, and the ground was subject to relocation on the 31st day of October, 1897, for the reason that up to that time the defendant, or its predecessors in interest, had failed to make a record of the Comstock location containing such a description of the claim by reference to natural objects or permanent monuments as required by section 2324, Rev. St. U.S., which provides, among other things:

'All records of mining claims hereafter made 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 is quite plain from the reading of the notice itself that the locators of the Comstock claim intended to meet fully every requirement of the law. The notice which they caused to be recorded describes the claim by reference to posts at each of the four corners, and at the centers of both end lines, and for the purpose of indicating the approximate situation of the claim, the notice also refers to a lake and a river, giving approximately the distances and directions therefrom to the claim. There is testimony disputing the accuracy of the distances and directions mentioned, and I have no doubt that, if there were no other description of the claim in the recorded notice than the reference therein to the lake and river, it would be impossible to identify the claim by such a reference; but, on the other hand, the evidence convinces me that an intelligent person, having no other guide than the description of the claim contained in the recorded notice, would be aided by the reference to the lake and river in finding the vicinity of the claim, and when there would be able to readily find the claim and identify it by the posts referred to in...