The mining laws of the United States do not require any notice to be posted upon the location of a mining claim when it is made, neither is there is any provision requiring the notice to be posted in any particular place upon the claim, as locations of mining claims are valid without any notice of location placed upon the ground. Book v. Justice Min. Co., 58 Fed. 106, p. 115. Walton v. Wild Goose Min., etc., Co., 123 Fed. 209, pp. 217, 218. The statute does not require that the notice shall either be posted on the ground or recorded, but such a notice is one kind of a marking when posted on the ground, and if it contains a description of the ground located, and is placed upon the record, it becomes constructive notice to the world of the locator's ground described in the record. Meydenbauer v. Stevens, 78 Fed. 787, p. 792. The United States mining laws do not require the notice of location to be posted or recorded except where this is required by local customs and rules of miners. Anderson v. Caughey, 3 Cal. App. 22, p. 26. Dwinnell v. Dyer, 145 Cal. 12. This section does not require a description of a mining claim to be included in the notice of location, nor demand more than that the claim shall be distinctly marked on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced. Sanders v. Noble, 18 Mont. 110, p. 116. This section does not require notice of a mining claim to be either posted or recorded, but intrusts that matter to local regulation subject to the condition that when notice is required to be recorded it shall contain among other things a description of the property. Allan v. Dunlap, 24 Oreg. 229, p. 238. See Carter v. Bacigalupi, 83 Cal. 187. County of Kern v. Lee, 129 Cal. 361, p. 362. This section does not require that a notice or declaratory statement shall be verified nor does it require that any notice or declaratory statement shall be filed for record. Hickey v. Anaconda Copper Co., 33 Mont. 46, p. 62. 2. NOTICE OR CERTIFICATE PERMITTED-EFFECT. The statute does not require a copy of the location notice to be posted on a claim, but miners of a local mining district may make such a regulation, and in that event it would be necessary to observe it. Elbert, In re, 16 C. L. O. 123. A location certificate differs from ordinary documentary muniments of title in that it is not a title or proof of title, nor does it constitute, nor of itself establish, the possessory right to which it relates, but when duly recorded it becomes notice to the world of the description of the premises claimed, by whom and when located, and is constructive notice of the claimants' possession, and it may be made by statute one of the requisite steps to constitute a perfected mining location. Etling v. Potter, 17 L. D. 424, p. 426. Strepey v. Stark, 7 Colo. 614. Bismark Mtn. Gold Min. Co. v. North Sunbeam Gold Min. Co., 14 Idaho 516, p. 530. The mere posting of a notice upon the ground is not sufficient to withdraw it from the public domain so as to render invalid another location as to conflicting areas where such location would otherwise be valid. Helena Gold, etc., Co. v. Baggaley, 34 Mont. 464, p. 473. See Lavagnino v. Uhlig, 198 U. S. 443. Street v. Delta Min. Co., 42 Mont. 371, p. 381. Posted notices may constitute a part of the marking and may aid in determining the situs of the monuments marking the claim, and they constitute a part of the marking, and while on account of the temporary nature may be of minor significance, yet this is not so where the location is followed by the actual and continued working of a claim. Eaton v. Norris, 131 Cal. 561, p. 565. See Jupiter Min. Co. v. Bodie Consol. Min. Co., 11 Fed. 666. 3. OBJECT OF LOCATION NOTICE. The object of notice of the location of a mining claim is to impart information to the public. See Columbia Copper Min. Co. v. Dutchess Min., etc., Co., 13 Wyo. 244, p. 255. The object of a notice of location is to guide a subsequent locator and afford him information as to the extent of the claim located, by such notice, and whatever does this fairly and reasonably should be held a good and sufficient notice, and if a miner has located a claim, taken possession, and worked it in good faith for a considerable length of time, his location notice is not to be defeated by technical criticism. Mt. Diablo, etc., Min. Co. v. Callison, 17 Fed. Cas. 918. Talmadge v. St. John, 129 Cal. 430, p. 435. Hauswirth v. Butcher, 4 Mont. 299, p. 309. The provisions of this section are designed to secure a definite description in the location notice, so plain that the claim can be easily ascertained. Hammer v. Garfield Min., etc., Co., 130 U. S. 291, p. 298. Overgaard v. Westerberg, 3 Alaska 168, p. 179. Cascaden v. Bortolis, 3 Alaska 200. San Miguel, etc., Min. Co. v. Bonner, 33 Colo. 207, p. 213. See Morrison v. Regan, 8 Idaho 291. Upton v. Larkin, 7 Mont. 449. Farmington Gold Min. Co. v. Rhymney, 20 Utah 363. The object of the location notice is to advise the public with reasonable certainty of the location and extent of the claim, and if the notice possesses within its terms information from which the location and boundaries may be found and identified by reference to some natural object or monument which is in fact permanent, it is sufficient, although it fails to designate the natural object or permanent monument as such in the precise language of the statute. Seidler v. Lafave, 4 N. Mex. 369, p. 373. Seidler v. Lafave, 5 N. Mex. 44. Overruling Baxter Mountain Gold Min. Co. v. Patterson, 3 N. Mex. 179. A location notice is a necessary paper in the patent proceedings, and there can not be a valid notice without a date, and accordingly the date appears in the proceedings, and it is generally placed on the posted notice, but if not it can be known by an examination in the Land Office. Bunker Hill, etc., Min., etc., Co. v. Empire State, etc., Min., etc., Co., 108 Fed. 189, p. 192. A location notice generally describes the ground located, and not what it is proposed to locate. Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co., 70 Fed. 455, p. 458. 4. GENERAL REQUISITES AND CONSTRUCTION. Under statutes requiring notice of mining claims to be posted on the ground courts are inclined to be exceedingly liberal and not technical in the construction of such notices. Book v. Justice Min. Co., 58 Fed. 106, p. 115. Walton v. Wild Goose Min., etc., Co., 123 Fed. 209, p. 215. McCulloch v. Murphy, 125 Fed. 147, p. 151. Tonopah & Salt Lake Min. Co. v. Tonopah Min. Co., 125 Fed. 389, p. 392. Sanders v. Noble, 22 Mont. 110, p. 137. Location notices of mining claims are usually prepared by the uneducated miners and are not held to technical accuracy, but they are construed with much liberality to aid miners in acquiring and holding valuable rights in mining property and to develop the mineral resources of the country. Bonanza Consol. Min. Co. v. Golden Head Min. Co., 29 Utah 159, p. 166. Wilson v. Triumph Min. Co., 19 Utah 66. Farmington Gold Min. Co. v. Rhymney Gold, etc., Co., 20 Utah 363. A notice of the location of a mining claim which substantially complies with the statute is sufficient. McEvoy v. Hyman, 25 Fed. 596, p. 598. Steen v. Wild Goose Min. Co., 1 Álaska 255, p. 263. See Strepey v. Stark, 7 Colo. 614. Frisholm v. Fitzgerald, 25 Colo. 290. Morrison v. Regan, 8 Idaho 291. Bismark Mtn. Gold Min. Co. v. North Sunbeam Gold. Min. Co., 14 Idaho 516, p. 528. Butte Consol. Min. Co. v. Barker, 35 Mont. 327. A notice of location must describe the mining claim located in such a manner that it can be identified. Smith v. Cascaden, 148 Fed. 792, p. 794. The information which the law requires the locator of a mining claim to give to the public must be deemed sufficient to acquaint third persons with the existence of such claim. Pacific Slope Lode, In re, 12 L. D. 686, p. 687. See Noyes v. Mantle, 127 U. S. 348. The notice or certificate of the location of a mining claim is not required to show the precise boundaries of the claim as marked on the ground, but it is sufficient if it contains directions that, taken in connection with the boundaries, will enable the claim to be found and the lines traced. Bonanza Consol. Min. Co. v. Golden Head Min. Co., 29 Utah 159, p. 166. A mining location is sufficient if it conforms strictly with the provisions of this section with respect to the posting and registration of notices and their contents. Gregory v. Pershbaker, 73 Cal. 109, p. 116. A location notice is sufficient under this section if by any reasonable construction, in view of the surrounding circumstances, the language used in the description will impart notice to subsequent locators. Bismark Mountain Gold Min. Co. v. North Sunbeam Gold Min. Co., 14 Idaho 516, p. 523. See Morrison v. Regan, 8 Idaho 291. Snowy Peak Gold Min. Co. v. Tamarack & Chesapeake Min. Co., 17 Idaho 630, p. 635. Farmington Gold Min. Co. v. Rhymney Gold, etc., Co., 20 Utah 363. Unnecessary words in the notice of the location of a mining claim may be rejected as surplusage. Preston v. Hunter, 67 Fed. 996, p. 998. A location notice must sufficiently and definitely describe the ground located, and land sought to be patented must be covered by the location on which the application for patent is based, and patent can not issue for any ground outside of the location. Jackson v. Dyer, 8 C. L. O. 3. 5. PARTICULAR REQUIREMENTS. A location notice which contains the name of the locator, date of the location, and describes the claim with sufficient accuracy is sufficient to form a basis for a miner's title. Butler v. Good Enough Min. Co., 1 Alaska 246, p. 249. A location stake must be erected after the discovery of a mining claim, and must have thereon a plain sign or notice containing the name of the lode, the name of the locator, and the date of the discovery. Cheesman v. Shreeve, 40 Fed. 787, p. 788. The notice must contain a designation of the loue, the names of the locators, the date of the location and the number of feet claimed on each side of the center of the discovery shaft. It must also give the general course of the lode and such a description of the claim by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify it with reasonable certainty. Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U. S. 527, pp. 533, 534. Marshall v. Harney Peak Tin Min., etc., Co., 1 S. Dak. 350, p. 360. See Wright v. Lyons, 45 Oreg. 167, p. 173. A location notice is not required to be placed on the vein located, but is sufficient if near by and indicates the vein sought to be located. Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co., 70 Fed. 455, p. 461. The notice of the location of a mining claim must show among other things the date of the location specified in the notice. Preston v. Hunter, 67 Fed. 996, p. 998. From the time of the discovery of a lode or vein to the time of its excavation a general designation of the claim, by notice posted on a stake placed at the point of discovery, stating the date of the location, the extent of the ground claimed, the designtion of the lode and the name of the locator is sufficient to entitle him to possession and to enable him to make the necessary excavations and to prepare the proper certificate for record. Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U. S. 527, p. 534. Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co., 70 Fed. 455, p. 458. Marshall v. Harney Peak Tin Min., etc., Co., 1 S. Dak. 350. See Tonopah & Salt Lake Min. Co. v. Tonopah Min. Co., 125 Fed. 389, p. 394. Donahue v. Meister, 88 Cal. 121. Sanders v. Noble, 22 Mont. 110, p. 122. Deeney v. Mineral Creek Min. Co., 11 N. Mex. 279. Upton v. Santa Rita Min. Co., 14 Ñ. Mex. 96, p. 127. 6. REQUIREMENTS AS TO LOCATION CERTIFICATE. The locator of a claim must make and file a location certificate, which shall contain the name of the locator, the date of the location, and such a description of the claim by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify it, and it must give the number of feet in length claimed on each side of the center of the discovery shaft and the general course of the lode. Cheesman v. Shreeve, 40 Fed. 787, p. 789. This section requires a certificate of location to contain the name of the locators, the date of the location, and the description of the claim with reference to some natural object or permanent monument, and the statute of Idaho (section 3102) provides that the certificate must contain such a description of the locality, by reference to natural landmarks or fixed objects and contiguous claims, if any, as to render the situation reasonably certain from the letter of the notice itself. Morrison v. Regan, 8 Idaho 291, p. 305. A location certificate which locates a lode by reference to two mountain peaks, giving the course or bearing of each from the discovery shaft in degrees and minutes, is prima facie sufficient under this section, taken in connection with the other parts of the description. Craig v. Thompson, 10 Colo. 517, p. 525. 7. NOTICE MUST REFER TO NATURAL OBJECT. A notice of a mining location must contain a description of the claim by reference to some natural object or permanent monument by which it can be identified. Mutchmor v. McCarty, 149 Cal. 603, p. 607. Reference may be made in a location notice to a located mining claim, as this is a natural object or landmark within the meaning of this section, but such reference must be reasonably certain. Morrison v. Regan, 8 Idaho 291, p. 302. A location notice of a mining claim is defective and insufficient where it has no proper reference to a natural object or a permanent monument as required by this section. Vogel v. Warsing, 146 Fed. 949, p. 951. 8. SUFFICIENCY AND EFFECT OF NOTICE. A location notice attached to a stake planted on the location, though somewhat indefinite, is sufficient if, when taken in connection with the stake and the monuments mentioned, and together with the subsequent improvements, it is so plain that no one could be misled thereby. Chambers v. Pitts, 3 C. L. O. 162. A location notice is sufficient when it does not mislead or confuse a person honestly desiring to ascertain the location or size of the claim. A notice of location is sufficient which particularly describes the claim and the boundaries thereof and gives the names of the locators and the date of the location, and where it is shown in connection with such notice that the boundaries of the claim were so marked that they could be readily determined. Holdt v. Hazard, 10 Cal. App. 440, p. 442. A location notice controls where there is no discrepancy between the calls of the location notice and the stakes on the ground, where it is shown that the adverse claimant had actual knowledge of the contents of the notice. Cardoner v. Stanley Consol. Min., etc., Co., 193 Fed. 517, p. 519. |