SECTION 2324, REVISED STATUTES. The miners of each mining district may make regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States, or with the laws of the State or Territory in which the district is situated, governing the location, manner of recording, amount of work necessary to hold possession of a mining claim, subject to the following requirements: The location must be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced. All records of mining claims hereafter made shall contain the name or names of the locators, the date of the location, and such a description of the claim or claims located by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim. On each claim located after the 10th day of May, 1872, and until a patent has been issued therefor, not less than one hundred dollars' worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made during each year. On all claims located prior to the 10th day of May, 1872, ten dollars' worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made by the 10th day of June, 1874, and each year thereafter, for each 100 feet in length along the vein until a patent has been issued therefor; but where such claims are held in common, such expenditure may be made upon any one claim; and upon a failure to comply with these conditions the claim or mine upon which such failure occurred shall be open to relocation in the same manner as if no location of the same had ever been made, provided that the original locators, their heirs, assigns, or legal representatives, have not resumed work upon the claim after failure and before such location. Upon the failure of any one of several coowners to contribute his proportion of the expenditures required hereby, the coowners who have performed the labor or made the improvements may, at the expiration of the year, give such delinquent coowner personal notice in writing or notice by publication in the newspaper published nearest the claim for at least once a week for ninety days, and if at the expiration of ninety days after such notice in writing or by publication such delinquent should fail or refuse to contribute his proportion of the expenditure required by this section his interest in the claim shall become the property of his coowners who have made the required expenditures. This section is the same as section 5, act of May 10, 1872 (17 Stat. 91) p. 678. See 18 Stat. 61, p. 282. A. CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION. B. LOCATION AND MINING CLAIM, p. 179. C. STATUTORY REGULATIONS, p. 190. D. MINERS' RULES AND REGULATIONS, p. 192. E. LOCATION NOTICE OR CERTIFICATE, p. 196. F. RECORD OF LOCATION, p. 208. G. MARKING LOCATION ON GROUND, p. 213. H. DESCRIPTION OF LOCATION OR CLAIM, p. 225. I. ANNUAL LABOR OR REPRESENTATION WORK, p. 233. K. ABANDONMENT OF CLAIM, p. 258. L. RELOCATION OF CLAIM, p. 263. M. COOWNERS, p. 271. N. MINERAL SURVEYORS, p. 280. O. JURISDICTION OF COURTS, p. 281. A. CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION. The simple requirements of the mining statutes have led courts to regard the mining laws as beneficial and to be liberally, not technically, construed with as little differentiation as may be between former known actual customs of miners, and the formulated expressions of Congress based upon those customs is positive law. Sanders v. Noble, 22 Mont. 110, p. 117. The provisions of this section refer to both lode and placer claims. Smelting Co. v. Kemp., 104 U. S. 636. The requirements of this statute are mandatory and must be strictly complied with. Worthen v. Sidway, 72 Ark. 215, p. 222. The locator of a mining claim loses all rights to his claim by failure to comply with this section. Smith v. Hill, 89 Cal. 122, p. 123. The United States mining laws are in a sense supplemental to the system that had grown up in the absence of these enactments, and in no sense did these wipe out, destroy, or essentially change the existing system, but expressly continued the same. Bodie Tunnel & Min. Co. v. Bechtel Consol. Min. Co., 1 L. D. 584, p. 588. See Broder v. Water Co., 101 U. S. 274. This section has no application to an option contract to purchase or develop mines in a foreign country and where there was no mineral entry under the laws of the United States. Gaines v. Chew, 167 Fed. 630, p. 636. Acquiescence by Congress in the construction placed upon this and the succeeding section amounts to legislative sanction, as otherwise they would have been amended so as to correct for the future any erroneous construction theretofore made. Aurora Hill, etc., Min. Co. v. Eighty Five Min. Co., 34 Fed. 515, p. 519. Congress has the power to impose such conditions on the right of the possession of the public lands as it may see fit, and the conditions imposed must be complied with. Du Prat v. James, 65 Cal. 555, p. 557. Russell v. Brosseau, 65 Cal. 605, p. 608. See Carney v. Arizona Gold Min. Co., 65 Cal. 40. This section must be construed in connection with section 2325, and both have reference to the possessory title of an applicant for a patent and the mode of acquiring patent for a mining claim. Harrison, In re, 11 C. L. O. 99, p. 101. The provisions of this section as to marking on the ground the boundary lines and as to the performance of the required labor or improvements during each year are in no wise affected by the provisions of section 2326, R. S. Nash v. McNamara, 30 Nev. 114, p. 135. This section regulates the manner of locating and recording and marking the boundaries of a mining claim and provides the amount of work necessary to hold its possession. Silver Bow Min., etc., Co. v. Clark, 5 Mont. 378, p. 410. B. MINING LOCATION AND CLAIM. 1. DEFINITION-"LOCATION" AND "CLAIM" SYNONYMOUS. 2. WHAT CONSTITUTES A LOCATION. 3. DISCOVERY ESSENTIAL. 4. TIME FOR COMPLETION OF LOCATION. 5. AMENDED LOCATION. 6. RIGHT TO CHANGE SURFACE LINES. 7. CONFLICTING LOCATIONS-PRIORITY. 8. LOCATION WITHIN LIMITS OF PRIOR LOCATION-EFFECT AND VALIDITY. 9. POSSESSORY RIGHTS AND TITLE. 10. RIGHT TO MAINTAIN AND DEFEND LOCATION. 11. CONDITIONS AS TO POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP. 12. POSSESSION WITHOUT PURCHASE. 13. MINING CLAIMS AS ESTOPPEL. PROPERTY-SALE AND TRANSFER 14. MINING CLAIMS NOT INCLUDED IN RESERVATIONS. 15. LOCATOR'S RIGHT TO PATENT-ENTRY-PROTEST. 16. JUDICIAL NOTICE AS TO MINING LOCATIONS.. 1. DEFINITION "LOCATION" AND "CLAIM" SYNONYMOUS. The two designations "mining claim" and "location" may be indiscriminately used to denote the same thing; but where two or more locations are combined it is then known as a claim. Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, p. 649. Territory v. Mackey, 8 Mont. 168, p. 173. A mining claim is that portion of a vein or lode and of the adjoining surface or of the surface and the subjacent material to which a claimant has acquired the right of possession by virtue of compliance with the United States Statutes and the local rules and customs of miners. Argonaut Min. Co. v. Kennedy Min. etc., Co., 84 Fed. 1, p. 2. See Northern Pacific R. Co. v. Sanders, 49 Fed. 129, p. 135. Williams v. Santa Clara Min. Assn., 66 Cal. 193, A mining claim is the name given to that portion of the public mineral lands which a miner for mining purposes takes up and holds in accordance with mining laws, local and statutory. Mt. Diablo, etc., Min. Co. v. Callison, 17 Fed. Cas. 918. Escott v. Crescent Coal, etc., Co., 56 Oreg. 190, p. 192. See Forbes v. Gracey, 94 U. S. 762, p. 766. Williams v. Santa Clara Min. Assn., 66 Cal. 193. Bewick v. Muir, 83 Cal. 163. Morse v. De Ardo, 107 Cal. 622. The terms "location" and "mining claim" are not always synonymous and may often mean different things, as a mining claim may refer to a parcel of land containing precious metal in its soil or rock, while location is the act of appropriating such land according to certain established rules. Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, p. 648. Peabody Gold Min. Co. v. Gold Hill Min. Co., 97 Fed. 657, p. 661. McFeters v. Pierson, 15 Colo. 201, p. 203. A mining claim may include as many adjoining locations as the locator can purchase, and the ground covered by all, though constituting what he claims for mining purposes will constitute a mining claim and will be so designated. Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, p. 649. Carson City G., etc., Min. Co. v. North Star Min. Co., 83 Fed. 658, p. 664. 2. WHAT CONSTITUTES A LOCATION. A location is the act of taking or appropriating a parcel of mineral land. Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, p. 649. A location consists in placing on the ground in some conspicuous position a notice giving the name of the locator, the fact that it is thus taken or located, with the requisite description of the extent and boundaries of the parcel of land. Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, p. 649. Peabody Gold Min. Co. v. Gold Hill Min. Co., 97 Fed. 657, p. 661. The following steps are prerequisite to the vesting of possessory title to a lode mining claim in a locator: Discovery of a mineral-bearing lode, and the distinct marking of the boundaries of the claim so that they can be readily traced. Erwin v. Perego, 93 Fed. 608, p. 611. Nevada Sierra Oil Co. v. Home Oil Co., 98 Fed. 673, p. 677. A locator is not bound to absolute accuracy in laying out the boundaries of his claim, nor is he to lose, by way of penalty, any portion of the surface of the claim located for having included within his side boundaries more than the statute allows as lateral rights, as he is entitled, nevertheless, to hold to the limit which the law authorizes within the limits laid out and the excess is to be rejected. McElligott v. Krogh, 151 Cal. 126, p. 132. A location made in good faith and in substantial compliance with the provisions of this section will be upheld. McElligott v. Krogh, 151 Cal. 126, p. 130. A locator can not deviate materially from the plain requirements of this section and save his claim. Parsons, In re, Sickels Min. L. & D. 48. See France, Pontez & Co. v. Harrison (Harrington), Sickels Min. L. & D. 49. A location which is sufficient to satisfy persons who are alone or adversely interested is sufficient to effect the full purpose contemplated by the statute. Eaton v. Norris, 131 Cal. 561, p. 563. A valid mining location will not be canceled for an error of an officer of the Land Department. Rust, In re, 2 L. D. 754. A mining location to be good must be good when made, and each claimant must stand on his own location and can take only what it will give him under the law. Lockhart v. Farrell, 31 Utah 155, p. 159. No definite rules can be stated by which to distinguish a speculative location from one made in good faith with a purpose to make excavations and ascertain the character of the lode or vein, with a view of making the necessary expenditures required to extract the mineral. This question must be determined by the facts of each parti ular case. Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U. S. 527, p. 536. 3. DISCOVERY ESSENTIAL. See secs. 2319, p. 23; 2320, p. 64; 2322, p. 108; 2325, p. 289; 2330, p. 528. The discovery of minerals within the limits of a location and the marking upon the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced are two essential requirements to the validity of a location of a mining claim. Miller v. Chrisman, 140 Cal. 440, p. 445. When a mining claim is properly located this location relates back to the date of the discovery. Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co., 70 Fed. 455, 460. Gregory v. Bershbaker, 73 Cal. 109, p. 120. The labor to be performed or the improvements to be made as required by this section applies to a claim located, and there can be no location until there has been a discovery. Union Oil Co., In re, 23 L. D. 222, p. 223. Where a discoverer has himself perfected a valid location on account of his discovery no one else can have the benefit of his discovery for the purposes of location adverse to him, except as a relocator after he has lost or abandoned his prior right. Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U. S. 45, p. 50. Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279, p. 284. Aurora Lode v. Bulger Hill & Nugget Gulch Placer, 23 L. D. 95, p. 99. The position of the discovery point alone is not sufficient to fix the extent of the surface ground, but this depends on the course of the vein or lode. Mason, In re, 8 C. L. O. 104. 4. TIME FOR COMPLETION OF LOCATION. Locators are entitled to a reasonable time after posting their notice in which to establish the exterior boundaries of their claims, and 20 days is a reasonable time. Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co., 55 Fed. 11, p. 15. A reasonable time is afforded after discovery to complete a mining location in order to eliminate, so far as circumstances will permit, guesswork in the location of quartz lodes. Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co., 70 Fed. 455, p. 460. Whenever preliminary work is required to define and describe the claim located, the original locator must be protected in the possession of his claim until sufficient excavations and development can be made so as to justify the necessary work to extract the metal. Otherwise the purpose of allowing free exploration would be defeated, and force and violence in the struggle for possession would determine the rights of the claimants. Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U. S. 527, p. 535. Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co., 55 Fed. 11, p. 15. While 20 days is not an unreasonable time to give a locator in which to locate his claim after the discovery of a vein, yet what would be a reasonable time for such com |