By accepting the entry and confirming it by patent the Government does not determine as to the order of proceeding prior to the entry, but only that all legal requirements have been taken. Creede & Cripple Creek, etc., Min. Co. v. Uinta Tunnel Min., etc., Co., 196 U. S. 337, p. 354. The entry of a mining claim properly allowed effectively terminates the right to relocate such claim because of a failure to do the annual assessment work to the same extent as would the resumption of work by a claimant before a relocation. Nielson v. Champagne Min., etc., Co., 29 L. D. 491, p. 493. An entry based upon a survey is a waiver of any additional rights claimed by way of amendment of an original mining location, and the additional tract can be regarded as only having been embraced in an independent location which would be subject to all the requirements of the law. Gilson Asphaltum Co., In re, 33 L. D. 612, p. 616. 3. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO ENTRY. The mining laws require certain acts in the nature of conditions precedent to be performed before entry is made, and the validity of the entry depends upon the facts existing at the time it is made and not upon anything which the claimant may thereafter do or omit to do. An entry may be made and a patent issued for a mining claim to an applicant who was not at the time of the filing of the application the owner of the claim but has since by proper conveyances obtained title thereto. Lonergan v. Shockley, 33 L. D. 238, p. 241. Where all the proceedings prior to an entry had reference to the ground claimed and sought to be patented as a mining claim and plats and notices were posted upon the claim as defined by the improvements and corner monuments, the location of the claim will be considered as sufficiently accurate and will cure any defect caused by noncompliance with district regulations in the matter of the width of the location, and especially where there is a formal annulment of such regulations prior to the allowance of the entry. Childs, In re, 10 L. D. 173, p. 176. The right to a patent to a mining claim is never pursued beyond the entryman. A mere application to make an entry on a lode claim but not properly followed up confers no exclusive right to the premises which others are bound to wait upon indefinitely. The department would be justified after entry in refusing to inquire whether there had been a discovery in a discovery shaft if it were clear that mineral had been discovered within the limits of the claim and all parties claiming adversely had been given an opportunity to be heard before entry. Wight v. Tabor, 2 L. D. 738, p. 742. While one discovery of mineral is sufficient in a placer location of 160 acres when made by an association, yet if any legal subdivision of such tract does not contain valuable deposits of mineral within the meaning of the statute, it must be excepted from entry. Ferrell v. Hoge, 27 L. D. 129, p. 131. American Smelting, etc., Co., In re, 39 L. D. 299, p. 304. As between the Government and a locator, it is not a vital fact that there was a discovery of mineral before the commencement of any of the steps required to perfect a location, where at the time of the entry everything had been done which entitled the locator to an entry, such as a discovery and a perfect location, and does not justify the Government in rejecting the application because the customary order of procedure had not been followed. Creede & Cripple Creek Min., etc., Co. v. Uinta Tunnel Min., etc., Co., 196 U. S. 337, p. 354. See Jones v. Wild Goose Min., etc., Co., 177 Fed. 95, p. 99. Brien v. Moffitt, 35 L. D. 32, p. 42. An application for a mineral entry will be canceled on the admission of the claimant that no discovery of mineral in rock in place was made at or prior to the time of the application or the hearing. Smuggler Min. Co. v. Trueworthy Lode Claim, 19 L. D. 356. 5. NOTICE OF APPLICATION NECESSARY BEFORE ENTRY. There can be no valid entry upon an application for a patent to a mining claim until notice of the application has been lawfully given. Southern Cross Gold Min. Co. v. Sexton, 31 L. D. 415, p. 417. There can be no valid entry upon an application for patent for a mining claim where the notice is fatally defective, as such a notice must be rejected and when the notice falls the entry falls also, and the adjudication of the insufficiency of the notice is equivalent to the determination that the entry has been erroneously allowed, and should be canceled. Southern Cross Gold Min. Co. v. Sexton, 31 L. D. 415, p. 417. A mineral entry should not be permitted where persons claiming adverse rights did not have actual notice of the pending application and where it is shown that either of the three statutory methods of conveying notice had not been complied with. Ferguson v. Hanson, 21 L. D. 336, p. 339. See Condon v. Mammoth Min. Co., 14 L. D. 138. 6. IRREGULAR ENTRY MAY STAND. Where an entry is irregularly allowed, it may be permitted to remain where the title in the meantime has been perfected. Woodman v. McGilvary, 39 L. D. 574, p. 576. See Teller, In re, 26 L. D. 484. Ritter, In re, 37 L. D. 715. Squires, In re, 40 L. D. 542, p. 544. A mineral entry which has been prematurely allowed because of an adverse suit may be permitted to stand on the withdrawal of all adverse claims. Gunnison Crystal Min. Co., In re, 2 L. D. 722, p. 724. Meyer v. Hyman, 7 L. D. 336. A mineral entry of a mining claim in the names of several persons some of whom had no interest in the claim at the time of entry may be permitted to stand where they subsequently acquire an interest by valid conveyances. Teller, In re, 26 L. D. 484. Auerbach, In re, 29 L. D. 208, p. 211. Squires, In re, 40 L. D. 542, p. 544. 56974-Bull. 94-15- -28 An entry of land held in reservation, made and intended in good faith or claim of right, will, if the land has since become subject to that class or character of entry, be permitted to remain intact. Demple v. Coe, 38 L. D. 528, p. 532. See Dobbs Placer Mine, In re, 1 L. D. 565. Moss Rose Lode, In re, 11 L. D. 120. A mineral entry made when land was not subject to appropriation may on the removal of the bar be permitted to stand. Moss Rose Lode, In re, 11 L. D. 120. See Schrotberger v. Arnold, 6 L. D. 425. 7. REFERENCE TO BOARD OF EQUITABLE ADJUDICATION. An entry may be referred to the board of equitable adjudication where the law has been complied with except in the matter of proof of posting the notice, which notice was furnished the department but lost. Cornell Lode, In re, 6 L. D. 717. Omaha Gold Min. Co., In re, 3 C. L. O. 163. See South End Min. Co. v. Tinney, 22 L. D. 19, p. 51. Entries of mining claims should not be referred to the board of equitable adjudication where there has been a plain undeniable violation of the law relating to such entry; but entries are only referred where the law has been substantially complied with and some error or informality has arisen from ignorance, accident, or mistake. Peacock Mill Site, In re, 27 L. D. 373, p. 374. New York Lode & Mill Site Claim, In re, 5 L. D. 513 (denied). 8. CONFLICTING GROUND PRIORITY OF LOCATION. A mineral entry that conflicts with an existing prior homestead entry can not properly be allowed by local officers, and the application for the mineral patent should be rejected to the extent of the conflict, or notice should be given to the homestead entryman and an opportunity for hearing afforded. Land embraced within a prior location and application of a mineral claimant is not subject to mineral entry by a subsequent locator. Rocky Lode, In re, 15 L. D. 571, p. 572. An entry of two overlapping mining claims made on separate discoveries of parallel veins by the same persons will be permitted on the theory that the subsequent location was an abandonment of a prior location to the extent of the overlap, and where such overlap had been expressly excluded. Golden Link Min., etc., Co., 29 L. D. 384, p. 387. So long as an entry remains uncanceled a second application for a patent for the same ground can not be allowed. Harrison, In re, 2 L. D. 767, p. 769, Where entry of a mining claim is based upon a relocation of an alleged abandoned mining claim positive and complete proof in regard to the abandonment of the prior location is not required. Manhattan & San Juan Silver Min. Co., 2 L. D. 698. The fact that a mineral entry will injuriously affect the extralateral rights of an existing lode location is a question for the courts and not for the Land Department where there is no surface conflict. Beik v. Nickerson, 29 L. D. 662, p. 665. In case of intersecting lode claims an entry based upon a subsequent location may be allowed for noncontiguous portions of ground. Silver Queen Lode, In re, 16 L. D. 186. 9. NONCONTIGUOUS CLAIMS. An entry of a mining claim will not be permitted where its contiguity is broken by a tract carved out of the center of the claim, but if the applicant elects he may abandon either of the pieces and enter the other. Apple Blossom Placer v. Cora Lee Lode, 21 L. D. 438, p. 439. See Emmons Min. Co., In re, 18 C. L. O. 254. A mineral entry may be allowed of a tract of land divided by a patented intersecting lode. Patten Extension Lode, In re, 15 L. D. 133. 10. EQUITABLE OWNERSHIP TITLE HELD IN TRUST. Where lode claimants have done all that is necessary under the law for the acquisition of an exclusive right to the possession and enjoyment of their claim it is thenceforth their property and they can obtain at any time a patent upon proof, and until the patent issues the Government holds the title in trust for them, and the ground included within their locations is not open to sale. Noyes v. Mantle, 127 U. S. 348. Pike's Peak Lode, In re, 10 L. D. 200, p. 202. South Star Lode, In re, 20 L. D. 204, p. 206. Yosemite National Park, In re, 25 L. D. 48, p. 50. Suessenbach v. First National Bank, 5 Dak. 477, p. 498. Elliott v. Elliott, 3 Alaska 352, p. 361. McQuillan v. Tanana Electric Co., 3 Alaska 110, p. 116. Overgaard v. Westerberg, 3 Alaska 168, p. 173. Copper River Min. Co. v. McClelland, 2 Alaska 134, p. 143. Largey, In re, 17 C. L. O. 3. Pike's Peak Lode, In re, 14 L. D. 47. By the purchase and entry of a mining claim, the equitable title vests in the purchaser, and his right to a patent is thereby established and duty to perform assessment work ceases. Benson Min., etc., Co., v. Alta Min., etc., Co., 145 U. S. 428. McCormack v. Night Hawk & Nightingale Gold Min. Co., 29 L. D. 373. Neilson v. Champagne Min., etc., Co., 29 L. D. 491, p. 493. When the right to a patent to a mining claim exists, the full equitable title has passed to the purchaser with all the benefits, immunities, and burdens of ownership, and no third person can acquire from the Government any interests as against the purchaser. Marburg Lode Min. Claim, In re, 30 L. D. 202, p. 205. In case of cash sales when the full price has been paid, or in other cases, where all of the conditions of entry are performed, the full equitalbe title has passed and only the naked legal title remains in the Government in trust for the applicant, in whom are vested all the rights and obligations of ownership. Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U. S. 392, p. 405. Benson Min., etc., Co. v. Alta Min., etc., Co., 145 U. S. 428, pp. 432, 434. Calhoun Gold Min., Co. v. Ajax, etc., Min. Co., 182, U. S. 499. Aspen Min., etc., Co. v. Rucker, 28 Fed. 220, p. 221. Hamilton v. Southern Nevada Gold, etc., Min., Co., 33 Fed. 562, p. 566. Olive Land and Dev. Co. v. Olmstead, 103, Fed. 568, p. 574: Neilson v. Champagne Min., etc., Co., 111 Fed. 655, p. 657. Teller v. United States, 113 Fed. 273, p. 282. Nielson v. Champagne Min., etc., Co., 119 Fed. 123, p. 125. Bretell v. Swift, 14 L. D. 697, p. 699. See Pacific Coast Min., etc., Co. v. Spargo, 16 Fed, 348, p. 349. McCormack v. Night Hawk & Nightingale Gold Min. Co., 29 L. D. 373, p. 377. Murray v. Montana Lumber & Mfg. Co., 25 Mont. 14, p. 22. Where a mineral claimant has satisfied the requirements of this section and applies for a patent and carries his patent proceedings to completion by making entry during the calendar year in which the period of publication of notice of application for a patent ends, he thereby acquires an equitable title and thereby obviates the necessity for observing for that year and prospectively the requirements with respect to annual expenditures, but if he fails to make entry within such calendar year then his title or interest remains throughout that year purely possessory in character, and unless entry is prevented by a suit his possessory right is dependent for its maintenance and continuance to the succeeding calendar year upon the prescribed annual expenditure with equal liability to forfeiture by relocation as though no patent proceedings had been instituted. Lucky Find Placer Claim, In re, 32 L. D. 200, p. 202. See Cleveland v. Eureka No. 1 Gold Min., etc., Co., 31 L. D. 69. The law severs the right of possession and enjoyment of a mining claim from the title, and until the right to a patent has been perfected and an equitable title acquired by full compliance with the law the Government retains the title to all mines within the public domain. O'Connell v. Pinnacle Gold Mines Co., 131 Fed. 106, p. 110. The patentee of a mining claim, on which he has made valuable improvements, has an equitable title, when the patent fails by reason of mistake in the description, which will prevail against one who with notice attempts to acquire the legal title to the claim. Garrard v. Silver Peak Mines, 82 Fed. 578, p. 586. The right to purchase from the United States the premises upon which a mining location has been made by the locator of the same is not an equitable estate in the premises. Black v. Elkhorn Min. Co., 49 Fed. 549, p. 552. An equitable estate in a mining claim when clearly established will be enforced in equity. Lakin v. Sierra Buttes Min. Co., 25 Fed. 337. Hunt v. Patchin, 35 Fed. 816. Book v. Justice Min. Co., 58 Fed. 106. 11. PAYMENT OF PRICE-EFFECT AND RIGHTS. Where a contract of purchase for mineral land is completed by the payment of money and the issuance of the certificate, the purchaser acquires a vested interest of which he can not be subsequently deprived, and the land ceases to be a part of the public domain and is no longer subject to the operations of the statute. Harrison, In re, 2 L. D. 767, p. 770. See Moss Rose Lode, In re, 11 L. D. 120. When the required proofs are made by a locator or coowner of a mining claim and the purchase money paid the equitable title of the purchaser is complete and the patent |