Scoggin v. Miller

• Decision Date: 10 February 1948
• Docket Number: 2379
• Parties: HARRY L. SCOGGIN, ROGER D. THOMAS, IMOGENE C. THOMAS, ERNEST SCOGGIN, ELVERDA SCOGGIN, JAMES T. McGUCKIN, CLAIRE C. McGUCKIN, ELSA J. SCOGGIN, L. J. BRIMMER, K. M. BRIMMER, GEORGE E. JOLLEY, MILLICENT E. JOLLEY, AND LEWIS A. GRUEGER, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LESLIE A. MILLER, MARGARET M. MILLER, KATHERINE M. MABEE, JOHN S. MILLER, ARTHUR H. READ, LEE W .READ, HERBERT W. READ, WINIFRED M. READ, MRS. T. J. CARROLL, BERNARD HOWELL, RAY E. LEE, D. AVERY HAGGARD, ADELAIDE B. LEE, JOHN D. MABEE AND MARTHA B. HAGGARD, Defendants and Respondents
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

189 P.2d 677

64 Wyo. 206

HARRY L. SCOGGIN, ROGER D. THOMAS, IMOGENE C. THOMAS, ERNEST SCOGGIN, ELVERDA SCOGGIN, JAMES T. McGUCKIN, CLAIRE C. McGUCKIN, ELSA J. SCOGGIN, L. J. BRIMMER, K. M. BRIMMER, GEORGE E. JOLLEY, MILLICENT E. JOLLEY, AND LEWIS A. GRUEGER, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. LESLIE A. MILLER, MARGARET M. MILLER, KATHERINE M. MABEE, JOHN S. MILLER, ARTHUR H. READ, LEE W .READ, HERBERT W. READ, WINIFRED M. READ, MRS. T. J. CARROLL, BERNARD HOWELL, RAY E. LEE, D. AVERY HAGGARD, ADELAIDE B. LEE, JOHN D. MABEE AND MARTHA B. HAGGARD, Defendants and Respondents

No. 2379

Supreme Court of Wyoming

February 10, 1948

APPEAL from District Court, Crook County; H. R. CHRISTMAS, Judge.

Action by Harry L. Scoggin and others against Leslie A. Miller and others to have plaintiffs' title in certain alleged placer mining claims adjudged to be superior to title of defendants to the land and to quiet title in plaintiffs. The defendants filed a cross petition. Judgment for defendants and plaintiffs appeal.

Judgment modified and affirmed.

See also, 189 P. 2d 693.

For the plaintiffs and appellants the cause was submitted on the brief and oral arguments of E. C. Raymond of Newcastle Wyoming and James T. McGuckin of Sundance, Wyoming.

POINTS OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS

A stake is not a post. The latter signifies more permanence and to sink it in the ground requires more effort and outlay, than to drive down a stake. It suggests larger proportions, is more readily seen than a stake. U. S. v. Sherman, 288 F. 500.

In Webster's New International Dictionary a post is defined as follows:

"A piece of timber, metal or other solid substance, fixed, or to be fixed, firmly in an up-right position, esp, as a stay or support; a pillar; prop; as, a hedging fence, a sheath, or telegraph posts; hence often short for door post, gate post etc."

If Congress has power to delegate to a body of miners the making of additional regulations respecting locations it cannot be doubted that it has equal power to delegate similar authority to a state legislature. The marking of locations upon the ground must be in accordance with the statute of Wyoming and any attempt to locate a claim that does not follow this statute amounts to nothing at all. The discoverer of a placer claim, in order to complete a location, shall do certain things. If it were intended that, in case the claim were located on surveyed ground, he should be exempt from so doing, the statute would have said so. The law was intended to, and does apply to placer claims, whether located on surveyed or unsurveyed government lands. To hold otherwise would be in effect to repeal the statute, and that is not a function of courts. It is the province of courts to uphold statutes wherever possible, and give them effect and meaning according to their plain terms. Saxton v. Perry, 107 P. 284.

Courts cannot assume legislative functions where the statute in question is certain in its terms and does not need construction. Harvester Company v. Lumber Company, 25 Wyo. 367, 370; Brennan v. Midwest Refining Co. 29 Wyo. 120; Ward v. Board of Commissioners, 36 Wyo. 464.

For the defendants and respondents the cause was submitted on the brief and oral argument of Albert D. Walton of Cheyenne Wyoming.

POINTS OF COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS

The rule recognized by all of the courts is that the purpose of the staking of a claim is to prevent the locators from "swinging" the claim to cover other land and to give notice to anyone going over the ground where the boundaries of said claim are situated, and it is a well recognized rule of law that the stakes do not have to be on the exact corner of the claim; but shall be "at", which means near the corner of the claim; and that a common stake may be used to mark the corners of two or more claims, especially so here the location notices of the several claims posted on or at the corner shall describe the claims by Government subdivisions.

40 C. J. 799, Section 206, (3): Except to the extent that particular methods of marking is required, what constitutes a sufficient marking of the boundaries of a mining claim are prescribed by local mining rules and regulations or statutes, no particular method of marking of the boundaries being generally a question of fact to be determined in each particular case, upon the character of the ground and other attendant circumstances. Lindley on Mines, Volume 2, Section 373.

The same stake or mark may be made to do joint duty in marking the boundaries common to adjoining claims; * and the marking of one claim may be sufficient as to unappropriated ground, although some of the stakes or marks are fixed by mistake on adjoining claims. 40 C. J. 801, Sec. 210 (d).

The Wyoming courts have laid down the rule that in so far as State statutes affect the location of mining claims on the public domain, such statutes are merely regulatory. Norris v. United Mineral Products Co., 158 P.2d 679.

Under the federal statute authorizing local rules governing the location of mining claims and the manner of recording, state statutes governing these matters are of no more force and effect than miners' rules. Clark Montana R. Co. v. Butte & Superior Copper Co., 233 F. 548, 63 L.Ed. 447.

Subsequent default of the senior location does not validate the right of the junior claimant. The right to the possession comes only from a valid location. Consequently, if there is no location there can be no possession under it. Location does not necessarily follow from possession, but possession from location. A location is not made by taking possession alone, but by working on the ground, recording and doing whatever else is required for that purpose by the acts of Congress and the local laws and regulations. Griffith, et al. v. Noonan, et al., 58 Wyo. 395, 133 P.2d 375.

The Mining Laws of the United States require no more than that the mining location must be distinctly traced. The details of the manner of marking are left to be settled by the regulations of local mining districts. It has generally been held that any markings on the ground, whether by monuments, mounds or stakes, if sufficient to permit the boundaries of the claim to be readily traced, is a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the federal statutes. Campbell et al. v. McIntyre, C. C. A. 9th Cir., 295 F. 45; Bergquist et al. v. West Virginia-Wyoming Copper Co., 18 Wyo. 234, 106 P. 673.

Stakes marking corner of placer locations do not have to be exactly on the corners, but may be off the land and near the corner. Kern Oil Co. v. Crawford, 143 Cal. 298, 76 P. 1111.

Land upon which a valid mining location has been made which has neither been abandoned nor forfeited, is segregated from public land and cannot be relocated. Obliteration or removal of stakes will not affect prior claims. Slauthower v. Hunter, 15 Wyo. 189.

Effect of failure to record within the time limited. The mere failure to record a notice, certificate or declaratory statement within the statutory time does not render the location of the claim invalid, where there are no intervening rights before the record is properly made, if there has been full compliance with the law in all other respects. Lindley on Mines, 3d Ed., Vol. 2, page 915. Ickes vs. Virginia-Colorado Development Corporation, C. C. D. C., 69 F.2d 123 (Aff'd. 295 U.S. 639).

The authorities are clear to the effect that a failure to do the assessment work does not create a forfeiture in favor of one occupying the position of defendants. Madison, et al. v. Octave Oil Co., 154 Cal. 768, 99 P. 176.

There is a substantial distinction between the notice required to be posted on the claim and the certificate or declaratory statement required to be filed for record. The notice of location is a protection to the discoverer merely during the process of location; the recorded certificate or declaratory statement is intended to contain a more exact and specific description of the claim than in the notice posted upon it. 40 C. J. 794.

The purpose of the requirement for posting and recording notice of location is to make known the purpose of the discoverer to claim title to the same to the extent discovered. Yosemite Gold Mining & Milling Co. v. Emerson, 208 U.S. 25, 52 L.Ed. 374, 28 S.Ct. 196.

Statutes governing the initiation of rights upon public mineral lands and defining the various steps to be taken to acquire same are liberally construed. Lindley on Mines, Volume 2, Sec. 381.

Good faith is required of relocators. Brown v. Murphy, (Cal.) 97 P.2d 281.

A person who knows that a mining claim is in the actual possession of another cannot honestly believe that it is vacant, and subject to entry and re-location; and the entry under such circumstances cannot be made in good faith, unless it is made upon some right, or color of right, or claim of a legal right, to make the entry. Such a claim of right must exist before the entry. If it does not exist, the entry is made without right or color of title, and is an entry in bad faith; for actual possession in another is prima facie evidence of title in the possessor, and is protected by the law against lawless invasion without right or color of right; but one who has a title and present right of possession may always take peaceable possession of what he claims to be his own. Tweedy v. Parsons (Cal.) 19 P.2d 497.

Good faith is required of relocators, and relocators having knowledge of the boundaries of prior locations and that assessment work has been done thereon, cannot acquire valid locations on the same land themselves. Yosemite Gold Mining & Milling Co. v. Emerson, 208 U.S. 25, 52 L.Ed 374, 28 S.Ct. 196; Winslow v. Burns, et al., 47 N. M. 29, 132 P.2d 1048; Upton v. Santa Rita Mining Co., 14 N. M. 202, 89 P. 275; Eaton...