Russell v. Chumasero
| Decision Date | 02 February 1882 |
| Parties | JOSEPH H. RUSSELL v. WILLIAM CHUMASERO and others. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
The declaratory statement of the location of a lode must contain the name of the locator, date of the location, and such description of the claim located by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim What are permanent monuments is a matter of proof; a stake or stone of proper size may be, and the boundaries of other adjoining claims may be, as definite and certain as is possible. A statement referring to stakes and adjoining claims should be received, and opportunity given to support and make certain the declaratory statement by competent testimony.
Appeal from Third district, Lewis and Clarke county.
Toole & Toole, for appellant.
Chumasero & Chadwick, for respondent.
Plaintiff, to maintain his action, offered in evidence the record of his declaratory statement and location of the Alta Lode claim, which is in the words and figures following, to-wit:
“DECLARATORY STATEMENT,
“This lode is situated in Ten-Mile Mining district, Lewis and Clarke county, Montana territory, discovered July 26, 1876, by J. H. Russell, and he hereby gives notice that he has located the above-named lode under the provisions of the act of congress, May 10, 1872, and claims 1,300 feet westerly, and 200 feet easterly, from discovery; thence to stake A, 300 feet; to stake B, 200 feet; to stake C, 390 feet; to stake D, 1,500 feet; to stake 600 feet; to stake A, 800 feet; bounded on the north by the south lines of the Mammoth and Free Speech lodes, and on the south by the north lines of Eureka and Fairview lodes,”-which was properly verified.
Defendants objected to the introduction of this declaratory statement in evidence, which was sustained, and exception saved, and the action of the court is the error complained of. The act under which the location was made, requires that the location be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced, and that the record thereof shall contain the name of the locator, the date of the location, and such description of the claim located, by reference to some natural object or permanent monument, as will identify the claim.
We held in the case of Hauswirth v. Butcher, infra, that such a location carried with it a grant from the government to the person making the same, and that the record must contain such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrison v. Regan
...Minnesota and Red Jacket mines may be patented mines, but that is not required, as they are well-known mines in that vicinity. (See Russell v. Chumasero supra.) Farmington Gold Min. Co. v. Rhymney Gold etc. Co., supra, the certificate of location was quite loosely drawn, and we think the co......
-
Bramlett v. Flick
...8 Mont. 248, 19 Pac. 302;Hoffman v. Beecher, 12 Mont. 489, 31 Pac. 92;Upton v. Larkin, 7 Mont. 449, 17 Pac. 728;Russell v. Chumasero, 4 Mont. 309, 1 Pac. 713;Brady v. Husby, 21 Nev. 453, 33 Pac. 801. “It is not for the court to say, by merely looking at a record or declaratory statement, wh......
-
Bramlett v. Flick
...description in the record or declaratory statement might be cured if the stakes or monuments on the ground identified the claim." Russell v. Chumasero, supra. reference to the Golden Eagle claim is definite enough to allow the notice to be submitted to the jury. True, Bramlett places it in ......
-
Cronin v. Bear Creek Gold Min. Co.
...and reference. (Flavin v. Mattingly, 8 Mont. 242, 19 P. 384; Garfield Min. Co. v. Hammer, 6 Mont. 53, 8 P. 153; Russell v. Chumasero, 4 Mont. 309, 1 P. 713; O'Donnell v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 248, 19 P. 302.) decisions in actions of this nature all show that in adverse suits the court must proceed......