Garula v. Udall

• Citation: 268 F. Supp. 910
• Decision Date: 26 April 1967
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 8998.
• Parties: Fred GARULA, Plaintiff, v. Stewart L. UDALL, as Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

268 F. Supp. 910

Fred GARULA, Plaintiff, v. Stewart L. UDALL, as Secretary of the Interior of the United States of America, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 8998.

United States District Court D. Colorado.

April 26, 1967.

J. F. Little and David C. Little, Denver, Colo., for plaintiff.

Lawrence M. Henry, U. S. Atty. for Dist. of Colorado, Richard T. Spriggs and David I. Shedroff, Asst. U. S. Attys., Denver, Colo., and Herbert Pittle, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

CHILSON, District Judge.

In an adversary proceeding instituted by the Bureau of Land Management of the Department of the Interior pursuant to the provisions of Part 221, Title 43, Code of Federal Regulations, the Hearing Examiner declared null and void the Silver Spoon Lode Mining Claim, in Lot 1, Section 3, T. 4 S., R. 72 W., of the 6th Principal Meridian, in Clear Creek County, Colorado, because "no discovery" had been made. Upon appeal, the Examiner's decision was affirmed by the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Land Management and the Secretary of the Interior acting through the Assistant Solicitor for Land Appeals. The matter is now before the Court for review.

The Court concludes that the decision of the Examiner and its affirmance is founded on an erroneous interpretation of the legal requirements of "a discovery" and the decision must, therefore, be set aside.

The applicable statute, 30 U.S.C. § 23, provides: "* * * no location of a mining claim shall be made until the discovery of the vein or lode. * * *" (Emphasis supplied.)

The Supreme Court in Chrisman v. Miller, 197 U.S. 313, 25 S.Ct. 468, 49 L.Ed. 770 (1905) and Cameron v. United States, 252 U.S. 450, 40 S.Ct. 410, 64 L. Ed. 659 (1919), established the requirements of a discovery to be:

1. The discovery of minerals within the boundaries of the mining claim: and

2. The discovery must be such as would justify a person of ordinary prudence in the further expenditure of his time and means in an effort to develop a paying mine.

That there was a discovery of minerals within the boundaries of the mining claim is not in dispute. The question before the Examiner was whether or not the minerals discovered were such as would justify a person of ordinary prudence in the further expenditure of his time and means in an effort to develop a paying mine.

Although the Examiner referred to the tests set forth in Chrisman and Cameron, supra, it is clear that in arriving at his decision he added additional tests and requirements to those established by Chrisman and Cameron, supra.

Thus, we find at page 11 of the Examiner's decision:

"Although it is not necessary that there be an actual disclosure of commercial ore at the discovery point, nevertheless, the showing required to validate a mining claim must establish that there has been discovered within the claim a mineral-bearing vein or lode `possessing in and of itself a present or prospective value for mining purposes.' This requirement, however, cannot be satisfied by a showing of mere indication (no matter how strong) of the existence of minerals or by the discovery of isolated bits of mineral not connected with or leading to substantial prospective values, nor is it enough to show that further exploration may be warranted in the hopes of finding a valuable deposit."

We find nothing in Chrisman and Cameron, supra, requiring such tests or imposing such restrictions.

The Examiner's interpretation of a valid discovery is consistent with what appears to be Bureau of Land Management policy:

"Although the Land Department still recognizes the prudent man test

...