Frank Waskey v. Joseph Hammer, 84

• Court: United States Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Van Devanter
• Citation: 32 S.Ct. 187,223 U.S. 85,56 L.Ed. 359
• Parties: FRANK H. WASKEY et al., Petitioners, v. JOSEPH HAMMER et al
• Docket Number: No. 84,84
• Decision Date: 22 January 1912

223 U.S. 85 32 S.Ct. 187 56 L.Ed. 359 FRANK H. WASKEY et al., Petitioners,

v.

JOSEPH HAMMER et al.

No. 84. Argued December 7, 1911. Decided January 22, 1912.

Page 86

Messrs.Albert Fink, W. H. Metson, Ira D. Orton, and E. H. Ryan for petitioners.

[Argument of Counsel from Pages 86-89 intentionally omitted]

Page 89

Messrs. Albert H. Elliot and George W. Rea for respondents.

Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:

This was an action of ejectment, the subject-matter of which was the overlapping portions of two placer mining claims in Alaska, one known as the Golden Bull and the other as the Bon Voyage. The plaintiffs claimed the area in conflict as part of the Golden Bull, and the defendants claimed it as part of the Bon Voyage. The facts, as they must be accepted for present purposes, are these:

In 1902 the Bon Voyage was located by J. Potter Whittren, he having previously made a discovery of placer gold within the ground which he included in the claim. Although not intended to be excessive, the claim embraced a trifle more than 20 acres, the maximum area permitted in a location by one person. In 1903 Whittren, upon ascertaining that fact, drew in two of the boundary lines sufficiently to exclude the excess, and in doing so left the point or place of his only prior mineral discovery outside the readjusted lines. Later in 1903, he made a discovery of placer gold within the lines as readjusted. At the time of drawing in the lines and making the subsequent discovery he was a United States mineral surveyor, but was not such at the time of the original location. In 1904 the Golden

Page 90

Bull was located by B. Schwartz, and included a part of the ground embraced in the Bon Voyage. Neither claim was carried to patent or entry, and when the action was begun the defendants were in possession. The plaintiffs other than Schwartz claimed under him, and the defendants other than Whittren claimed under conveyances from him, made after 1904.

Upon the trial the court, at the instance of the plaintiffs, directed a verdict in their favor, substantially upon the following grounds, taken collectively: 1. A discovery of mineral within the limits of a mining claim is essential to its validity; 2. The original location of the Bon Voyage was invalidated by the readjustment of its lines whereby the point or place of the only prior discovery of mineral was left without those lines; 3. The readjusted location was invalid because, at the time of the discovery of mineral therein, Whittren, being a United States mineral surveyor, was disqualified to make a location under the mining laws. The jury returned a verdict as directed, judgment was entered thereon, the judgment was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals for the ninth circuit, (95 C. C. A. 305, 170 Fed. 31), and the case is here upon certiorari (216 U. S. 622, 54 L. ed. 641, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 577).

Conceding that the unintentional inclusion of a trifle more than 20 acres in the Bon Voyage as originally located was an irregularity which did not vitiate the location, but merely made it necessary that the excess be excluded when it became known (Richmond Min. Co. v. Rose, 114 U. S. 576, 580, 29 L. ed. 273, 274, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1055; McIntosh v. Price, 58 C. C. A. 136, 121 Fed. 716; Zimmerman v. Funchion, 89 C. C. A. 53, 161 Fed. 859), we come to consider whether the location was invalidated when, by the readjustment of its lines, it was left without a mineral discovery therein. The mining laws, Rev. Stat. §§ 2320, 2329, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, pp. 1424, 1432, make the discovery of mineral 'within the limits of the claim' a prerequisite to the location of a claim, whether lode or placer, the purpose being to reward the

Page 91

discoverer and to prevent the location of land not found to be mineral. A discovery without the limits of the claim, no matter what its proximity, does not suffice. In giving effect to this restriction, this court said, in Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U. S. 45, 29 L. ed. 348, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1110, 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 482, that the loss of that part of a location which embraces the place of the only discovery therein is 'a loss of the location.' Possibly what was said went beyond the necessities of that case, critically considered, but it illustrates what naturally would be taken to be the effect of the statute; and as that view of it has been accepted and acted upon for twenty-five years by the Land Department and by the courts...