United States v. Iron Silver Min. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 July 1885
• Citation: 24 F. 568
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. IRON SILVER MIN. CO. [1]
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

24 F. 568

UNITED STATES v. IRON SILVER MIN. CO. ^[1]

United States Circuit Court, D. Colorado.

July 28, 1885

A. W Brazee, U.S. Dist. Atty., for the United States.

C. G Symes, for defendant.

BREWER J.

This is a proceeding in equity to set aside patents for two placer mines, known, respectively, as the Stinson and the McCrary 266; S.C. 16 F. 810. See, also, supporting the opinion supreme court, March 30, 1885. Answer was thereupon filed and the case is now submitted on pleadings and proof. The charge in the bill is fraud in obtaining these patents. It is charged that the ground embraced within these patents was not placer mining ground; that several valuable leads or lodes containing mineral in rock or placer existed thereon; that both of these facts were known to the applicant and patentee; that the ground was covered with valuable timber; that he falsely and fraudulently represented to the land-officers that there were no veins, leads, or lodes, and that it was placer mining ground, and that he had done the requisite work.

The testimony discloses that in 1879 Sawyer, the patentee, prospected on this ground and located, having claimed to have discovered some four mineral veins. After he had filed and recorded his location certificate he became embarrassed financially, and called on Mr. Stevens, now one of the principal owners of the Iron Silver Mine, for assistance. There was a fine growth of timber on the premises. Mr. Stevens went over with him and examined. Upon his suggestion Sawyer determined to disregard the locations already made, and to file an application for a patent upon an enlarged territory as placer mining ground; Mr. Stevens promising to advance him money upon an agreement that when the patents were obtained the property should be conveyed to him, less certain specified portions. In pursuance of this determination applications were made, in which it was set forth that there were no known leads or lodes, proofs were duly made, and in due course of time patents issued, and thereafter conveyance of the ground to the Iron Silver Mining Company, in accordance with the prior arrangement.

I think it obvious from the testimony that the main object of Stevens was to secure the timber. As the proofs were duly and legally made, the proceedings apparently all regular, and no adverse claims presented to the ground finally patented, I take the rule to be that, before a court will set aside a patent, it must appear, not merely that the applicant was mistaken, but that the representations were falsely and fraudulently made and that this fact must clearly appear. Of course the first question is, was this placer mining ground? It appears from the testimony that before Sawyer was on the premises, during some two or three years, a little placer mining had been done in Buffalo gulch, which runs up through part of this territory. There was but a limited supply of water in the gulch, flowing partially from a spring, and partially fed...