C. LOCATIONS ON SURVEYED AND UNSURVEYED LANDS. 1. DESCRIPTION AND FORM. 2. DIVISION OF LEGAL SUBDIVISIONS. 1. DESCRIPTION AND FORM. A placer mining claim must be located upon surveyed land and described by legal subdivisions thereof, and if such legal subdivisions include other entered claims, these should be excluded from the patent proceedings involving such placer claim. Mary Darling Placer Claim, In re, 31 L. D. 64. Rialto No. 2 Placer Min. Claim, In re, 34 L. D. 44, p. 46. Green v. Gavin, 10 Cal. App. 330, p. 336. See Laughing Water Placer, In re, 34 L. D. 56, p. 58. A placer claim, whether on surveyed or unsurveyed lands, must conform to the system of public land surveys and the rectangular subdivisions thereof. Roman Placer Min. Claim, In re, 34 L. D. 260, p. 262. Lovely Placer Claim, In re, 35 L. D. 426, p. 427. The requirement of the law as to the location of placer claims upon unsurveyed land is met by locating the claims in rectangular form with proper dimensions and with eastern and western and northern and southern lines. Wood Placer Min. Co., In re, 32 L. D. 363, p. 365. Hogan & Idaho Min. Claims, In re, 34 L. D. 42, p. 43. Two rules are recognized in locating and fixing the exterior boundaries of placer claims: one requiring them to conform to the system of public land surveys; and the other, where this can not be done, a survey and plat shall be made as on unsurveyed lands; and these two rules, together with the provision reducing the area to 20 acres, continues to be the law. Price v. McIntosh, 1 Alaska 286, p. 295. The only limitation imposed by the statute upon the location of a placer mining claim upon the unsurveyed public land in Alaska is that it shall not include more than 20 acres. Price v. McIntosh, 1 Alaska 286, p. 295. The courts of Alaska will take judicial notice that the public land surveys have not been extended to the entire district of Alaska and do not embrace a particular placer claim and that all public domain within a particular part of the jurisdiction of the court is unsurveyed and that placer mining claims upon such lands may be located without regard to the public surveys. Price v. McIntosh, 1 Alaska 286, p. 295. The boundaries of a placer claim may be formed by side lines parallel to the center lines and by end lines at right angles thereto where the marking of the claim is on the center line, and in such case the side lines may be located equidistant from the center line and embrace 20 acres. Loeser v. Gardiner, 1 Alaska 641, p. 646. See Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U. S. 527. Mount Diablo, etc., Min. Co. v. Callison, 17 Fed. Cas. 918. A miner's rule or regulation arbitrarily fixing the size of all placer claims in Alaska at 1,320 feet in length by 660 feet in width, without any exception or variation, is unreasonable and is in conflict with the United States statute, as such a rule, custom, or regulation can not limit a placer claim to less than 20 acres nor fix an unvaried form for such claims upon the unsurveyed public lands of Alaska. Price v. McIntosh, 1 Alaska 286, p. 296. See Rablin, In re, 2 L. D. 764. Pearsall, In re, 6 L. D. 227. Esperance Min. Co., In re, 10 C. L. O. 338. 2. DIVISION OF LEGAL SUBDIVISIONS. The legal subdivisions on which placer claims may be located may be subdivided into 10-acre tracts. Reins v. Murray, 22 L. D. 409, p. 411. McNabb, In re, 42 L. D. 413, p. 415. See Meiklejohn v. Hyde, 42 L. D. 144, p. 148. Where a legal subdivision of 40 acres is divided into two or more fractional lots of an intersecting survey, such fractional lots may be embraced in one location and a patent may be granted therefor in the same manner as when the entire tract is applied for. Foote, In re, 9 C. L. O., p. 113. The statute does not contemplate that in the location and entry of placer mining claims rectangular tracts of 5 acres may be recognized and treated as legal subdivisions, as the smallest legal subdivision recognized and provided for is 10 acres, which must be in square form. Roman Placer Min. Co., In re, 34 L. D. 260, p. 263. A placer location may be made of a 10-acre tract in a square form, and if such a tract, whether in a single location or with others, is shown to be nonplacer ground, then it can not pass to entry and patent under a placer application. American Smelting, etc., Co., In re, 39 L. D. 299, p. 301. The fact that a placer claim was located within a particular subdivision and in such manner as to interpose between different parts of a quarter section does not render the settlement claim noncontiguous, as the placer claim is merely a segregation of a part of such particular legal subdivision over which the settlement and residence of the homestead applicant extended. Wright, In re, 32 L. D. 522, p. 524. D. RELOCATION. Mining claims are not open to relocation until the rights of former locators have come to an end, as two locations can not legally occupy the same ground at the same time. Stenfjeld v. Espe, 171 Fed. 825, p. 827. See Porter v. Tonopah North Star Tunnel & Dev. Co., 133 Fed. 756. E. AGRICULTURAL AND MINERAL LANDS. 1. PROOF OF CHARACTER. 2. SEGREGATION OF MINERAL AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS. 1. PROOF OF CHARACTER. The report of the surveyor general is sufficient prima facie to make lands agricultural though they are in the mineral belt of California, and if any such section so designated was alleged to be mineral a hearing for the purpose of determining the facts should be held, but the burden of proof in such case should rest on the person alleging the land to be mineral. Hooper v. Ferguson, 2 L. D. 712, p. 713. Caledonia Min. Co. v. Rowen, 2 L. D. 714, p. 717. See Elda Min., etc., Co., In re, 29 L. D. 279, p. 281. As 10-acre areas in square form are recognized as legal subdivisions under mining laws, a necessary inclusion therein of some nonplacer land will not affect the validity of the claim if the land as a whole is more valuable for placer mining than for agricultural purposes. Snow Flake Fraction Placer, In re, 37 L. D. 250, p. 253. 2. SEGREGATION OF MINERAL AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS. This section recognizes the fact that the same land may be both agricultural and mineral. Harrison, In re, 19 L. D. 299, p. 300. A survey of agricultural lands may be made so as to segregate the part of the land actually containing a mining location from the remainder of the tract and separate patents issued to the mineral and agricultural claimant. Lannon v. Pinkston, 9 L. D. 143, p. 144. It not infrequently occurs that tracts of land small portions of which are not valuable for placer mining are embraced within placer locations where the lands as a whole are in fact more valuable for a placer mine than for agricultural purposes. Hogan & Idaho Placer Min. Claims, In re, 34 L. D. 42, p. 43. A homestead entry is a reservation of the land from further entry until after a hearing, and until such time a mineral application can not be received for the same land. Hooper v. Ferguson, 2 L. D. 712. The homesteader whose claim is impaired by a mineral entry has the right of appeal. Hooper v. Ferguson, 2 L. D. 712, p. 713. F. ASPHALTUM AND PHOSPHATE LANDS AS PLACER LOCATIONS. Phosphate lands may be located as a placer claim under the provisions of this section. Phosphate Deposits, In re, 17 C. L. O. 74. See Duffield v. San Francisco Chemical Co., 205 Fed. 480. When asphaltum is found in a liquid or semiliquid state and is not in rock in place, it may be located as a placer claim. Webb v. American Asphaltum Min. Co., 157 Fed. 203, p. 206. G. CONSOLIDATION OF CLAIMS. 1. JOINT ENTRY. 2. SALE AND ACQUISITION OF CLAIMS- -PATENT. See sec. 2325, p. 323. 1. JOINT ENTRY. Under this section two or more persons, or an association of persons, having contiguous claims of any size are permitted to make a joint entry thereof. Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, p. 653. Donnelly v. United States, 228 U. S. 243, p. 265. As the statute permits two or more persons having contiguous claims to make a joint entry, it follows that a single person should be permitted to unite his entries which adjoin each other in one survey. Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, p. 653. According to the rules and regulations of the miners long before patents were issued, miners were in the habit of consolidating adjoining claims, whether they consisted of one or more original locations, into one for convenience and economy in working it, and this practice has been permitted and approved by the department. Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, p. 653. See Poire v. Wells, 6 Colo. 406, p. 412. This section provides for the joint entry and patent of contiguous placer claims owned by two or more persons, and this necessarily implies that they may be located and occupied jointly before such purchase. Chapman v. Toy Long, 5 Fed. Cas. 497. Under this section legal subdivisions of 40 acres may be subdivided into 10-acre tracts and two or more persons having contiguous claims of any size less than 10 acres each may make joint entry thereof, and these provisions are intended to meet conditions peculiar to the assertion of placer claims where the placer deposits are limited in extent to tracts of smaller area than 40 acres. Roman Placer Min. Co., In re, 34 L. D. 260, p. 262. The provision permitting two or more persons to make a joint entry of contiguous claims authorizes an assignee of several such claims to join the claims in a single entry or to make separate entries at his election. Williams, In re, 15 L. D. 532, p. 533. Mackie, In re, 5 L. D. 199. Golden Sun Min. Co., In re, 6 L. D. 808. See Good Return Min. Co., In re, 4 L. D. 221. Rogers, In re, 4 L. D. 284. Champion Min. Co., In re, 4 L. D. 362. The provisions of this section that two or more persons or association of persons having contiguous claims may make joint entry thereof is subject to the limitation that no location of a placer claim shall exceed 160 acres for any one person or association of persons. Cook v. Klonos, 164 Fed. 529, p. 537. It can not be assumed that where a placer mineral deposit is discovered in any 40acre subdivision that an association of eight persons is thereby authorized to embrace in a mining location founded upon such discovery three other contiguous 40-acre subdivisions of nonmineral land and to receive a patent therefor as a part of such mining claim. Ferrell v. Hoge, 29 L. D. 12, p. 15. 2. SALE AND ACQUISITION OF CLAIMS PATENT. Neither this section nor the section following puts any limitation upon the sale of the ground located nor upon the number of locations which may be acquired by purchase, nor upon the number which may be included in a patent. Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, p. 651. The mining statutes contain numerous provisions assuming and recognizing the salable character of the locator's interest in a mining claim. Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, p. 651. SECTION 2331, REVISED STATUTES. Where placer claims are upon surveyed lands, and conform to legal subdivisions, no further survey or plat shall be required, and all placer-mining claims located after the 10th day of May, 1872, shall conform as near as practicable with the United States system of public-land surveys, and the rectangular subdivisions of such surveys, and no such location shall include more than 20 acres for each individual claimant; but where placer claims can not be conformed to legal subdivisions, survey and plat shall be made as on unsurveyed lands; and where by the segregation of mineral lands in any legal subdivision a quantity of agricultural land less than 40 acres remains, such fractional portion of agricultural land may be entered by any party qualified by law, for homestead or preemption purposes. Same as section 10, act of May 10, 1872 (17 Stat. 91), p. 681. A. OBJECT AND CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION. B. LOCATIONS ON SURVEYED LANDS, p. 540. C. LOCATIONS ON UNSURVEYED LANDS, p. 544. D. POSSESSORY RIGHTS EFFECT OF TEMPORARY ABSENCE, p. 545. E. HOMESTEAD AND MINERAL CLAIMANTS RELATIVE RIGHTS, p. 545. F. REPRESENTATION WORK-VALUE OF IMPROVEMENTS—APPORTIONMENT, p. 546. G. PLACER GROUND-BEDS OF STREAMS, p. 546. A. OBJECT AND CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION. 1. QUANTITY OF LAND LOCATED AS PLACER. 2. LOCATION BY INDIVIDUAL QUANTITY. 3. LOCATION BY INDIVIDUAL-DOCTRINE OF RELATION. 5. LOCATION BY AGENTS OR DUMMIES. 6. LOCATION BY ASSOCIATION QUANTITY. 7. LOCATION BY CORPORATION QUANTITY. 8. FORM OF LOCATION "SHOESTRING" LOCATIONS. 9. EXCESSIVE LOCATION-EFFECT. 10. DISCOVERY ON SUBDIVISIONS OF ASSOCIATION LOCATIONSNUMBER. 1. QUANTITY OF LAND LOCATED AS PLACER. The policy and object of this section is to limit the quantity of placer mineral land which may be located by one person to 20 acres, and while one person may obtain a patent for more than this amount he can do so only by representing to the Government that he is a purchaser of any excess from one or more bona fide locators whose locations were made in conformity with this limitation, and as showing his good faith |