Farmington Gold-Mining Co. v. Rhymney Gold & Copper Co.

• Decision Date: 25 October 1899
• Citation: 58 P. 832,20 Utah 363
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: FARMINGTON GOLD MINING CO., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT v. RHYMNEY GOLD AND COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT

58 P. 832

20 Utah 363

FARMINGTON GOLD MINING CO., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT v. RHYMNEY GOLD AND COPPER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RESPONDENT

Supreme Court of Utah

October 25, 1899

Appeal from the Second District Court, Davis County, Hon. H. H Rolapp, Judge.

Action by plaintiff to quiet title of certain mining claims in Davis county to which it was alleged that defendant wrongfully asserted and claimed some right. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appealed.

Affirmed.

James H. Moyle, Esq., John M. Zane, Esq., Messrs. Young & Moyle and D. H. Wells, Jr., Esq., Attorneys for appellant.

The notice also fails to indicate that the claim was distinctly marked on the ground, or that its boundaries could be readily traced, it merely recites the following: "I claim from this notice 750 feet to a monument of stone; thence northwesterly from this notice 750 feet to a monument of stone." The mere posting of a location notice on the ground and placing two monuments 1,500 feet apart in opposite directions does not distinctly mark the claim upon the ground, for it possesses neither side nor end lines, width or length, at least no attempt is made to describe the width, and whether the 1500-foot line indicated by the two monuments is intended to run through the center of the claim or in a diagonal or other direction is wholly undetermined.

One of the imperative requirements of the statute, and an indispensable condition precedent to a valid location, is, that it shall be "distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced." U.S. Revised Statutes 2324.

The statute provides no method for locating a mining claim, except by defining a surface claim, the end lines of which shall be parallel to each other. U.S. Revised Statutes, Secs. 2324 and 2320; Darger et. al. v. St. V. Le Sieur, 8 Utah 160.

We think the description in the locations not such as is required by the statute. Drummond v. Long, (Colo. Sup.) 13 P. 743; Faxon v. Barnard, 4 F. 702; Mining Co. v. Drake, (Colo. Sup.) 9 P. 787; Holland v. M. A. G. Q. Co., 53 Cal. 149.

The statutory requirements as to description and identification are mandatory, and a failure to comply with them renders a location wholly nugatory, and the notice thereof inadmissible in evidence. Gilpin Co. M. Co. v. Drake, 9 P. 787; White v. Lee, 21 P. 363; Gown v. Russell, 3 Mont. 358; Golden Fleece M. Co. v. Cable Cons. M. Co., 12 Nev. 312; 1 M. R. 120; Anthony v. Jillson, 23 P. 419.

Messrs. Wilson & Smith, attorneys for respondent.

If it be admitted that the notice is somewhat indefinite in its minor details, and is not such as would be made by a lawyer in his office, or a skilled surveyor, yet it cannot be denied that it is sufficient, to direct the inquirer to the ground, and it is as accurate and definite as would ordinarily be made by the average pioneer prospector. These notices uniformly receive a liberal construction at the hand of the courts. 1 Lind. on Mines, 381.

If a location certificate contains some reference to a natural object or permanent monument it will be held sufficient to identify the claim in the absence of evidence for or against the sufficiency of the reference in the notice. Brady v. Husly, 21 Nev. 453. 1 Lind. on Mines, 383.

The purpose of the notice is to direct the inquirer to the place where the claim is located, and not to show its boundaries. Gramer v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 371, 387.

A stone or stake of proper size may be sufficient monument, and what are, or what are not, permanent monuments, are matters of proof, and cannot be decided by the court by simple reference to the location certificate. Russell v. Chumasero, 1 P. (Mont.) 713; Metcalf v. Prescott, 25 P. 1037.

It is not necessary to express in terms the number of feet the locator intends to claim on each side of the lode. Mt. Diablo M. M. Co. v. Callison, 5 Sawy. 488-9.

BARTCH, C. J. MINER, J. and BASKIN, J., concur.

OPINION

BARTCH, C. J.

The main question presented for our consideration in this case is, whether the notice of location of the Rhymney Mining claim, with the supplementary proof, was properly admitted in evidence. The ground of the objection appears to be the uncertainty in the description. The notice reads, as follows:

"Notice is hereby given that the undersigned having complied with the requirements of section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States and the local laws, customs and regulations of this district, has located 1500 feet in length by 600 feet in width on this the Rhymney Mine, lode, vein or deposit bearing gold, silver and other precious metals, situated in the Farmington Mining District, Utah Territory, the location being described and marked on the ground as follows, to-wit: Situated about one mile and a half eastward from the depot under a large cliff of rock. I claim from this notice 750 feet southeasterly to a monument of stone; thence northwesterly from this notice 750 feet to a monument of stone. The mining claim above described shall be known as the Rhymney Mine. Located this 7th day of January, 1884. Names of Locators."

"HYRUM E. HAYNES."

The notice was recorded May 19th, 1884.

The appellant insists that it was so indefinite and uncertain that it did not impart notice to the public, and that the claim was not tied to a natural object or permanent monument so as to identify it, as required by section 2324 Rev. Stat., U.S., which, so far as material here, reads: "The location must be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced. 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."

The first clause of this provision requires the "location to be distinctly marked on the ground," but whether or not a claim is so marked is a question of fact to be determined from proof aliunde, and it is not required to be stated in the notice how the claim is marked on the ground.

"Where the right of possession is founded on an alleged compliance with the law relating to a valid location, all the necessary steps aside from the making and recording of the location certificate, must, when contested, be established by proof outside of such certificate. The record of the certificate is proof itself of its own performance as one of such steps, and in regular order, generally speaking, the last step in perfecting the...