§ 56. Relocation after forfeiture. After a claim has been forfeited for a failure to perform the work required by the statute, it can be relocated the same as though no location of the same had ever been made.1 All the acts of location necessary on the part of the original locator must be performed by the relocator.2 But after a relocation of the claim has been completed by a third party, after failure of the original locator to perform the work and labor required by the statute, and before a resumption of work by him, the rights of the original locator would be forever barred by his previous failure, nor could he make a relocation of the claim, for the purpose of correcting an error in his original location and thus prejudice the rights of the intervening relocator.4 But a relocation, however regular in form, would be of no effect if the original location was valid and the locator had kept it so by complying with the law,5 for although the claim could be relocated after a failure by the original locator to perform the annual amount of work required by statute, until the original locator's rights have been abandoned, forfeited, or otherwise ended, or as long as he retains the legal possession of the land, another could not make a valid relocation of the same.7 1 R. S. U. S., § 2324. 2 Strong v. Ryan, 46 Cal. 33; Cheesman v. Shreve, 40 Fed. Rep. 787. 3 Wade's Amer. Min. Laws, § 31, p. 57; Mor. Min. Rts. (10 Ed.) 284, et sub. 4 Hall v. Arnott, 80 Cal. 348; 22 Pac. Rep. 200; Golden Fleece Co. v. Cable Con. Co., 12 Nev. 329; Wolfley v. Lebanon Min. Co., 4 Colo. 112. Nor would a conspiracy between part of the co-owners to let the claim lapse avail the others, as against such relocator. Doherty v. Morris, 11 Colo. 12. 5 Garthe v. Hart, 73 Cal. 541; 15 Pac. Rep. 93. 6 Morgan v. Tillottson, 73 Cal. 520; 15 Pac. Rep. 88. "Under 7 Lockhart v. Rollins, 34 Fed. Rep. 515; 21 Pac. Rep. 413. the Colorado statute, in order to relocate an abandoned lode claim it is necessary either to sink a new discovery shaft or deepen the old one, to fix new boundaries or adopt the old ones, to renew the After a § 57. Same By one of several co-owners. claim has been forfeited for a failure to perform the usual amount of assessment work, one of several co-owners can relocate the claim in his own name and appropriate the interest of his cotenants in the abandoned claim.1 This follows as a natural consequence from the effect of the statute, leaving the claim after forfeiture in the same condition as though no location had been made. Any one or all of the co-owners should have the same right to relocate the claim that a stranger could exercise in regard to the same claim, nor is there any just cause why a relocation. by one cotenant should inure to the benefit of all, after they had voluntarily lost their rights by a failure to comply with the statute. 3 But if the forfeiture should occur in boundary post, to erect a new location stake, and to state in the certificate that the location is made in whole or in part as abandoned property; and a valid relocation is not made by the mere surveying, staking, and certifying of a previously located, overlapping claim." Amor v. Soper. 11 Colo. 380; 7 Am. St. Rep. 246; 18 Pac. Rep. 443. "Prima facie evidence of the location of a mine by the grantor of the one in possession is sufficient to justify a verdict against one who, knowing of such location, relocated it on the claim that was abandoned." Yreka Min. & Mill. Co. v. Knight (Cal.), 65 Pac. Rep. 1091. 1 Strong v. Ryan, 46 Cal. 36, considered and discussed by Mr. Wade in Wade's Amer. Min. Laws, p. 58, § 32. 2 R. S. U. S., § 2324. 3 Mr. Wade criticises the holding in Strong v.Ryan, supra, and characterizes, the same as "questionable "¡law, whereas it seems but a reasonable interpretation of the statute as applied to the rights of the parties, in that case, and for this reason very "wholesome " law. The rights of the parties terminate ipso facto, with an abandonment of the claim or a failure to perform the statutory labor; nor would it be right, if one of the co-owners, more industrious than the rest, saw fit to relocate the claim, to give the less vigilant the benefit of his labor. The provision of the statute giving co-owners a lien on the interest of a delinquent cotenant, for a failure to contribute his proportion of the expenditures is not at all inconsistent with the holding in this case, nor does it have any application after a forfeiture of the claim. So, on the whole, with due deference to Mr. Wade's opinion, we think the holding of the court should stand. (For Mr. Wade's criticism of this case, see his Amer. Min. Law, p. 58, § 32.) the first instance through the negligence or fraud of one of the co-owners and it could be shown that his intention in letting the claim forfeit was to relocate the same in his own right, he would not be permitted to thus take advantage of his own wrong and defeat the rights of his cotenants by a subsequent relocation of the claim, but the same, when perfected, would inure to the benefit of his co-owners, equally with himself.1 1 Wade Amer. Min. Law, supra; King v. Edwards, 1 Mont. 235; Strong v. Ryan, 46 Cal. 33; see also title Relocation, in Mor. Min. Rts. (10 Ed.) and cases cited. PATENTS TO MINING LANDS. SECTION 58. Of the nature and effect of patents. 61. Reservations and exceptions. 63. Who may be patentee. 64. Void patent- Effect of. 65. Patent obtained by fraud. 66. Same-Estoppel. 67. Mining claims on school lands. 68. Contests between mining and town site patentees. § 58. Of the nature and effect of patents. - A patent is the formal deed of conveyance required by the general laws for the transfer of land when the title to the same is in the general government. In the United States, Congress alone has power to dispose of the public lands, either by general or special acts. The United States is the absolute and paramount owner of the public land, and could undoubtedly adopt any means of transferring the title, and any method adopted would be just as conclusive evidence of the irrevocable character of the conveyance; 2 but as the patent is the instrument adopted by the legislative authority for the transfer of the legal title to land held by the government, this instrument is correctly regarded as superior and conclusive evidence of legal title." 1 Tiedeman on R. P., § 745. 2 Wade's Amer. Min. Laws, p. 92; Mor. Min. R's. (10 Ed.) 113-123. 3 Ante, idem. The statute is as follows: "§ 2325. A patent for any land claimed and located for valuable deposits may be obtained in the following manner: Any person, association or corporation authorized to locate a claim under this chapter, having claimed and located a piece of The patent is signed by the President, or someone authorized to affix his signature, and sealed with the great seal of the United States; but it is not necessary that the land for such purposes, who has or have complied with the terms of this chapter, may file in the proper land office an application for a patent, under oath, showing such compliance, together with a plat and field notes of the claim or claims in common, made by or under the direction of the United States surveyor-general, showing accurately the boundaries of the claim or claims, which shall be distinctly marked by monuments on the ground, and shall post a copy of such plat, together with a notice of such application for a patent, in a conspicuous place on the land embraced in such plat previous to the filing of the application for a patent, and shall file an affidavit of at least two persons that such notice has been duly posted, and shall file a copy of the notice in such land office, and shall thereupon be entitled to a patent for the land in the manner following: The register of the land office, upon the filing of such application, plat, field notes, notices and affidavits, shall publish a notice that such application has been made, for the period of sixty days, in a newspaper to be by him designated as published nearest to such claim; and he shall also post such notice in his office for the same period. The claimant, at the time of filling this application, or at any time thereafter, within the sixty days of publication, shall file with the register a certificate of the United States surveyor-general that five hundred dollars' worth of labor has been expended or improvements made upon the claim by himself or grantors; that the plat is correct, with such further description by such reference to natural objects or permanent monuments as shall identify the claim, and furnish an accurate description, to be incorporated in the patent. At the expiration of the sixty days of publication, the claimant shall file his affidavit, showing that the plat and notice have been posted in a conspicuous place on the claim during such period of publication. If no adverse claim shall have been filled with the register and the receiver of the proper land office at the expiration of the sixty days of publication, it shall be assumed that the applicant is entitled to a patent, upon the payment to the proper officer of five dollars per acre, and that no adverse claim exists; and thereafter no objection from third parties to the issuance of a patent shall be heard, except it be shown that the applicant has failed to comply with the terms of this chapter. (Act of Congress May 10, 1872, Ch. 152, § 6-) [That where the claimant for a patent is not a resident of the land district wherein the vein, lode, ledge or deposit, sought to be patented is located, the application for patent and the affidavits required to be made in this section by the claimant for such patent may be made by his, her or its authorized agent where said agent is conversant with the facts sought to be established by said affi |