GWILLIM V. DONNELLAN
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Citation | 115 U. S. 45 |
Decision Date | 04 May 1885 |
STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
In proceedings under Rev.Stat. §§ 2325, 2326 to determine adverse claims to locations of mineral lands, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to show a location which entitles him to possession against the United States as well as against the other claimant, and therefore when plaintiff at the trial admitted that that part of his claim wherein his discovery shaft was situated had been patented to a third person, the court rightly instructed the jury that he was not entitled to recover any part of the premises, and to find for defendant.
These were proceedings under Rev.Stat. §§ 2325-2326 to determine adverse claims to a mineral location. The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit begun July 7, 1881, under Rev.Stat. § 2326 to determine the rights of adverse claimants to certain mining locations. Donnellan and Everett, the defendants in error here and also the defendants below, were the owners of the Mendota claim or location, and Gwillim, the plaintiff in error here, and the plaintiff below, the owner of the Cambrian. The two claims conflicted. The defendants applied, under Rev.Stat. § 2325 for a patent of the land covered by their location, and the plaintiff filed in due time and in proper form his adverse claim. To sustain this adverse claim the present suit is brought, which is in form an action to establish the right of the plaintiff to the premises in dispute and to the possession thereof as against the defendants on account of a "prior location thereof as a mining claim in the public domain of the United States."
The question in the case arises on this state of facts:
This instruction is assigned for error.
Thomas made his location as the discoverer of a vein or lode within the lines of his claim. He made but one location, and that for fifteen hundred feet in length along the discovered vein. All his labor was done at the discovery shaft. There was no claim of a second discovery at any other place than where the shaft was sunk.
The location is made on the surface, and the discovery must be of a vein or lode the top or apex of which is within the limits of the surface lines of such location. A patent for the land located conveys the legal title
to the surface, and that carries with it the right to follow a discovered vein, the apex of which is within the limits of the grant downwards, even though it may pass outside the vertical side lines of the location. The title to the vein depends on the right to the occupancy or the ownership of its apex within the limits of the right to the occupation of the surface. This right may be acquired by a valid location and continued maintenance of a mining claim, or by a patent from the United States for the land.
To keep up and maintain a valid location 0 worth of labor must be done, or improvements made, during each year until a patent has been issued therefor. § 2324.
By § 2325, it is provided that a patent may be obtained for land located or claimed for valuable deposits. To accomplish this, a locator, who has complied with all the statutory requirements on that subject, may file in the proper land office an...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bergquist v. West Virginia-Wyoming Copper Company
...... location based upon a discovery within the limits of an. existing and valid location is void. ( Belk v. Meagher, 104 U.S. 279; Gwillim v. Donnellan, . 115 U.S. 45; Zerres v. Vanina, 134 F. 610; Book. v. Justice M. Co., 58 F. 106; Perigo v. Erwin, . 85 F. 904; Sullivan v. ......
-
Freeman v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Civil Case No. 12–1094 BAH
...at 30. The plaintiff's argument is unpersuasive.First, the plaintiff takes on the IBLA's citation in a footnote to Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U.S. 45, 55, 5 S.Ct. 1110, 29 L.Ed. 348 (1885), for the proposition that, “If the claimant does not prove a discovery during the contest hearing, then......
-
Freeman v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, Civil Case No. 12–1094 (BAH)
...at 30. The plaintiff's argument is unpersuasive. First, the plaintiff takes on the IBLA's citation in a footnote to Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U.S. 45, 55, 5 S.Ct. 1110, 29 L.Ed. 348 (1885), for the proposition that, “If the claimant does not prove a discovery during the contest hearing, the......
-
Worthen v. Sidway
...... transferred, or mortgaged, and upon the death of the locator. will pass by descent to his heirs." Gwillim v. Donnellan , 115 U.S. 45, 29 L.Ed. 348, 5 S.Ct. 1110;. Forbes v. Gracey , 94 U.S. 762, 24 L.Ed. 313; Belk v. Meagher , 104 U.S. 279, 26. ......