The description of the location as recorded is binding on the locator, but if the calls as to distances and courses set out vary from the markings actually made on the ground, the latter will prevail. Meydenbauer v. Stevens, 78 Fed. 787, p. 792. See Bennett v. Harkrader, 158 Ú. S. 441. Steen v. Wild Goose Min. Co., 1 Alaska 255. In descriptions of mining claims courses and distances must yield to objects and monuments, and these can not be rejected as false and mistaken in favor of a mere course or distance, but a false or mistaken particular in a conveyance may be rejected where there are definite particulars sufficient to locate the grant. Garrard v. Silver Peak Mines, 82 Fed. 578, p. 585. See Book v. Justice Min. Co., 58 Fed. 106, p. 115. The rule that in the location or description of a mining claim monuments shall control courses and distances is recognized only in cases where the monuments are clearly ascertained, but where there is doubt as to the monuments as well as to the courses or distances, then there can be no reason for saying that monuments shall prevail rather than the courses given in a patent. Thallman v. Thomas, 102 Fed. 935, p. 936. Thallman v. Thomas, 111 Fed. 277, p. 283. Duncan v. Eagle, etc., Min., etc., Co. 48 Colo. 569, p. 580. In case of a failure or discrepancy between the stakes and monuments on the ground of a mining claim and the recorded location certificate the former will prevail as superior evidence of the particular ground located and its boundaries. Sturtevant v. Vogel, 167 Fed. 448, p. 452. 11. MISTAKE OR VARIANCE RECORD NOT CONCLUSIVE. Where there is a variance between the calls of a location notice of a mining claim and the lines of the claim as actually staked upon the ground, and the monuments and stakes fully comply with all statutory requirements and are in place, the locator, in the absence of fraud, is not limited to the claim as described of record, unless a subsequent locator has knowledge of the description contained in such location notice and act thereon, as in such case it is the same as if no location notice had been made or recorded. Cardoner v. Stanley Consol. Min., etc., Co., 193 Fed. 517, p. 520. See Sturtevant v. Vogel, 167 Fed. 448, p. 453. A notice posted on a mining claim will not invalidate the location where the word "northerly" is used instead of the word "northeasterly," and in such case the word "northerly," taken with the surrounding circumstances and conditions, will be interpreted as meaning due north. Book v. Justice Min. Co., 58 Fed. 106, p. 115. The mining laws of a district giving a locator the right to place his stake at the point he supposes and claims a ledge to be and permits him to hold 100 feet on each side, with all the ores and minerals therein, protects him upon newly discovered croppings against any error in selecting the spot to place his stake and notice. Mt. Diablo, etc., Min. Co. v. Callison, 17 Fed. Cas. 918. When a miner has stated, as the rules require, the number of feet he claims along the lode on which he sets his stake, and refers all persons concerned to the laws of the district by claiming all the privileges granted by such laws, and such laws entitle him to hold 100 feet on each side of his lode, then the length and breadth of his claim are fixed with reasonable certainty. Mt. Diablo, etc., Min. Co. v. Callison, 17 Fed. Cas. 918. 12. SWINGING CLAIMS. The time allowed by the State statutes after making discovery and posting the notice was intended to give the discoverer time to explore the vein or lode and find out its strike, and thus enable him to lay his claim; and he could, during such statutory period, swing the claim in any direction, so as to extend it along the vein to the exclusion of any other location made in the meantime, within a circular area, the diameter of which is equal to the longest distance claimed from the point of discovery; but this can not destroy the rights of junior locators except so far as the conflict extends, and to the extent of any such conflict any subsequent location is invalid. Sanders v. Noble, 22 Mont. 110. Bramlett v. Flick, 23 Mont. 95. Helena Gold & Iron Co. v. Baggaley, 34 Mont. 464, p. 473. Street v. Delta Min. Co., 42 Mont. 371, p. 383. Ferris v. McNally, 45 Mont. 20, p. 27. See Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279. Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U. S. 527. Under this section, as supplemented by sections 3610 and 3612 of the Political Code of Montana, the locator of a mining claim within that State has 90 days, after posting the required notice at the point of discovery, in which to file his declaratory statement giving a description of the claim sufficient to identify it and may, within such time, swing his claim in any direction to correspond with the course of the vein as developed after the original discovery and within such 90 days. Sanders v. Noble, 22 Mont. 110, p. 139. Bramlett v. Flick, 23 Mont. 95. See Mining Co. v. Tarbet, 98 U. S. 463. Gleeson v. Martin White Min. Co., 13 Nev. 442. Marshall v. Harney Peak Tin Min., etc., Co., 1 S. Dak. 350. Bullion, Beck & Champion Min. Co. v. Eureka Hill, etc., Min. Co., 5 Utah 3, p. 70 (dissenting opinion). The description of a mining claim in a location notice may be changed if other ground is not embraced, up to the date such location notice becomes a record. Doe v. Waterloo Min. Co., 70 Fed. 455, p. 458. The locator of a mining claim, so far as the surface ground is concerned, is bound by the lines designated upon the surface, and he can not swing his surface location so as to claim any other surface ground. Golden Fleece Gold & Silver Min. Co. v. Cable Consol., etc., Min. Co., 12 Nev. 312, p. 331. See Nicholls v. Lewis & Clark Min. Co., 18 Idaho 224, p. 236. Sanders v. Noble, 22 Mont. 110, p. 139. Bullion, Beck & Champion Min. Co. v. Eureka Min. Co., 5 Utah 3, p. 70 (dissenting opinion). I. ANNUAL LABOR OR REPRESENTATION WORK. 1. CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION-PROVISIONS MANDATORY. 2. PURPOSE OF REQUIREMENT EVIDENCE OF GOOD FAITH. 3. PERFORMANCE A CONDITION TO POSSESSION BUT NOT PATENT. 4. AMOUNT OF WORK REQUIRED. 5. VALUE OF WORK OR IMPROVEMENTS-DETERMINATION. 6. LOCAL REGULATIONS EFFECT AND VALIDITY. 7. WHO MAY PERFORM WORK AND MAKE IMPROVEMENTS. 8. TIME FOR PERFORMANCE OF WORK OR MAKING IMPROVEMENTS. 9. CHARACTER OF WORK OR IMPROVEMENTS GENERALLY. 10. LABOR OR IMPROVEMENTS FOR DEVELOPING CLAIM. 56974-Bull. 94-15--18 11. SERVICES OF WATCHMAN. 12. TRAVELING EXPENSES. 13. DEVELOPMENT WORK AND IMPROVEMENTS OUTSIDE OF CLAIM. 14. KINDS OF WORK OR IMPROVEMENTS OUTSIDE OF CLAIM. 15. GENERAL SYSTEM OF DEVELOPMENT WORK FOR GROUP CLAIMS. 16. DEVELOPMENT WORK AND IMPROVEMENTS FOR GROUP CLAIMS. 17. VALUE OF WORK OR IMPROVEMENTS ON ONE OF GROUP CLAIMS. 18. CLAIMS HELD IN COMMON-CONTIGUOUS CLAIMS. 19. INSUFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT WORK OR IMPROVEMENTS. 20. TUNNEL CONSTRUCTION WORK. 21. NO WORK REQUIRED AFTER APPLICATION AND ENTRY. 22. FAILURE TO PERFORM WORK-EFFECT. 23. RESUMPTION OF WORK-MEANING AND EFFECT. 24. PROOF OF PERFORMANCE OF WORK. 25. PERFORMANCE OF WORK-JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE. 1. CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION-PROVISIONS MANDATORY. The requirement that a certain amount of labor each year be done on a mining claim is imperative, and a failure to do so renders the claim subject to relocation. Anthony v. Jillson, 83 Cal. 296, p. 301. See Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U. S. 350, p. 353. Morgan v. Tillottson, 73 Cal. 520. The conditions imposed by the statute for holding and working a mining claim are wise and salutary and by no means onerous and must be complied with. Wright v. Killian, 132 Cal. 56, p. 61. See Russell v. Brosseau, 65 Cal. 605, p. 609. The construction and policy of this section require every person asserting an exclusive right to a mining claim to expend something of labor or of value upon it as evidence of good faith. The Federal and State authorities agree that unless a locator substantially complies with the law in regard to the labor to be expended on the claim, in the manner and form provided by statute, he forfeits his right therein, as this provision of the statute is mandatory. Zerres v. Vanina, 134 Fed. 610, p. 617. The fulfillment of the provisions of this section lies in the performance of the labor or the making of the improvements required. Coleman v. Curtis, 12 Mont. 301, p. 305. 2. PURPOSE OF REQUIREMENT EVIDENCE OF GOOD FAITH. The purpose of the law is to exact work as evidence of good faith on the part of the owner and to discourage the holding of mining claims without development or intention to develop to the exclusion of others who might improve such ground if opportunity was afforded, and accordingly the annual work must be performed by the owner, at his instance, by some one in privity with him, or by some one who holds an equitable or beneficial interest in the property, as work done by such a person will inure to the benefit of the claim. Wailes v. Davies, 158 Fed. 667, p. 672. Jupiter Min. Co. v, Bodie Consol. Min. Co., 11 Fed. 666. Book v. Justice Min. Co., 58 Fed. 106. The purpose of requiring work to be done on a mining claim each year was to require every person who asserted an exclusive right to his discovery or claim to expend something of labor or value upon it as an evidence of his good faith. Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U. S. 350, p. 353. Good Return Min. Co., In re, 4 L. D. 221, p. 224. See Anthony v. Jillson, 83 Cal. 296, p. 300. The purpose of this statute is to require the mine owner to prove his good faith by performing one hundred dollars' worth of labor on each claim each year until patent issues; but the statute does not require any particular character of labor, nor does it require that the work shall be wisely and judicially done, and it gives no direction as to how it shall be performed; and if the required amount of labor in the nature of mining is performed on the claim, whether the work is beneficial or not, there could be no forfeiture. Wailes v. Davies, 158 Fed. 667, p. 670. The purpose of the requirement as to annual expenditures was to obviate abuses arising in the mining regions and to prevent the accumulation of possessory titles to great areas of land upon which no work was done or improvements made for long series of years, as this retarded the progress and development of the mining industry. Smith v. Van Clief, 6 C. L. O. 2, p. 3. The statutory requirements as to work and labor and improvements are required as an earnest of good faith and to prevent a long occupation of mining ground without any development work being done; and if a locator in good faith expends the required amount in prospecting or developing a claim, or extracting mineral therefrom, neither the courts nor the department can refuse credit for the expenditure on the ground that some better method could have been pursued. McCornick, In re, 40 L. D. 498, p. 503. The object of the requirement as to the amount of labor performed on a claim, or improvements made, is that the holder of a mining claim shall give substantial guaranty of his good faith, and not from the desire on the part of the Government to obtain the money of the locator, and it would be against public policy to permit a person to hold a mining claim for years against all other persons with no design or intention to develop it; but the labor is not required to be applied in any particular manner if it is devoted to the claim. Lockhart v. Rollins, 2 Idaho 503, The purpose of this section was the development of the mineral resources of the country, and to the accomplishment of this end the appropriator of the mineral domain was required to expend not less than $100 in labor or improvements for the development of each claim in each year; but when claims were held in common the expenditure can be made upon one, as Congress intended to provide a method for the economical development of a group of continuous claims. Hain v. Mattes, 34 Colo. 345, p. 348. Congress required the assessment work to be done by way of a continuous annual assertion or renewal of the original claim or location, and the amount of expenditure required is too small to be of any practical consequence as a development of the claim. Sherlock v. Leighton, 9 Wyo. 297, p. 308. See Mount Diablo etc. Min. Co. v. Callison, 17 Fed. Cas. 918; 5 Sawy. 439. 3. PERFORMANCE A CONDITION TO POSSESSION BUT NOT PATENT. The performance of the requisite amount of development work is essential to the continued possession of the mining location. Donnelly v. United States, 228 U. S. 243, p. 266. Black v. Elkhorn Min. Co., 163 Ú. S. 445, p. 450. The doing of annual assessment work is not a condition to obtaining patent, but is only a condition to the continued right of possession to an unpatented mining claim as against other and adverse claimants, and a failure to perform such work furnishes no ground for the cancellation of an entry in the absence of an adverse claim legally asserted. McEvoy v. Megginson, 29 L. D. 164, p. 165. The annual expenditure or assessment work required by this section, while necessary to the continued maintenance of the possessory title, is not a condition to obtaining a patent. Nielson v. Champagne Min., etc., Co., 29 L. D. 491, p. 493. The improvements and expenditure required by this section are essentially different from those required by the following section, and by that section the expenditure of $500 in labor or improvements is made a condition to the issuance of patent, and is therefore a matter between the applicant and the Government and the determination of this question is committed to the Land Department; and when the expenditure of $500 has been made upon a mining claim the failure to perform the annual assessment work, as required by this section, will not prevent the issuance of patent or furnish any ground of protest. Marburg Lode Min. Claim, In re, 30 L. D. 202, p. 206. Wolenberg, In re, 29 L. D. 302, p. 304. Poore v. Kaufman, 44 Mont. 248, p. 256. See Cleveland v. Eureka Gold. Mín., etc., Co., 31 L. D. 69. The performance of the annual assessment work required of a locator applies to a mineral claimant in his application for a patent on proof of possession under section 2332 R. S. Upton v. Santa Rita Min. Co., 14 N. Mex. 96, p. 124. If assessment work is done for the benefit of a claim, it is immaterial whether such claim is patented or unpatented. Justice Min. Co. v. Barclay, 82 Fed. 554, p. 561. See McGarrity v. Byington, 12 Cal. 426. Hall v. Kearney, 18 Colo. 505, p. 509. Kramer v. Settle, 1 Idaho 485. Godfrey v. Faust, 20 S. Dak. 203, p. 207. 4. AMOUNT OF WORK REQUIRED. This section requires that on each claim located after May 10, 1872, there shall be annually expended, in labor or improvements, $100 until patent issues; and on claims located prior thereto an annual expenditure of $10 for each 100 feet in length along the vein; but where the claims are held in common the expenditure may be upon any one claim. Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, p. 654. Mackie, In re, 5 L. D. 199, p. 201. p. 501. McCornick, In re, 40 L. D. 498, Drake, In re, 5 C. L. O. 4. Good Return Min. Co., In re, 4 L. D. 221. |