of Iowa gulch, above timber line, on the west side of Bald Mountain," is not such a reference to a natural object as would render the record admissible in evidence. Faxon v. Barnard, 2 McCrary, 44; 4 Fed. Rep. 702; 1 Colo. Law Rep. 147; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 515. 195. A record of location notice which identifies a point of the claim by bearings to mountain peaks is prima facie sufficient in the matter of description, and is admissible in evidence, though it may be thereafter proven insufficient. Craig v. Thompson, 10 Colo. 517; 16 Pac. Rep. 24. 196. Under section 2324, United States Re vised Statutes, requiring that a location record of a mining claim shall contain such description of the claim located by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim, parol evidence is admissible to show that a natural object or monument referred to in the location, but not designated therein as a permanent object, is in fact permanent. Seider v. Lafave, 4 New Mex. 369; 20 Pac. Rep. 789; Seider v. Maxfield, 4 New Mex. 374; 20 Pac. Rep. 794. (Overrul 189, A claim was described in the location certificate as follows: "Beginning at the westerly end of the Gilpin County Mining Company's property, on the Williams lode, in Lake Gulch Mining District; runs thence in a westerly direction a distance of fifty feet to the easterly end of Packard and Updegraph's property on said lode." This description was held to be insufficient, and the location certificate inadmissible, though the other claims mentioned were patented ones. Gilpin County M. Co. v. Drake, 8 Colo. 586; 9 Pac. Rep. 787. 190. A statement in the record of locationing Baxter Mtn. G. M. Co. v. Patterson, 3 New that the claim (described as containing a cerMex. 171; 3 Pac. Rep. 741; 3 West Coast Rep. 77.) tain number of feet each way from discovery shaft, with surface ground of certain width) is situated "on the southwest side of Mount Hardin, in Portland Gulch, about 1500 feet north of the Hawk-Eye lode," is not a sufficient description of the locus of the claim to render the record admissible in evidence. Drummond v. Long, 9 Colo. 538; 13 Pac. Rep. 543; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 510. 191. A reference in a location certificate to the discovery cut and the stakes on the claim located is not a sufficient reference to permanent monuments as to render the record admissible in evidence. McEvoy v. Hyman, 25 Fed. Rep. 596; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 397. 192. A location certificate is inadmissible in evidence when it is obvious from a reading of it that there could be no certain description therein of the claim located. Darger v. Le Sieur, 8 Utah, 160; 30 Pac. Rep. 363. (Affirmed, 9 Utah, 192.) 193. A location certificate describing the claim only by reference to neighboring claims is insufficient, and not receivable as evidence. Baxter Mtn. G. M. Co. v. Patterson, 3 New Mex. 179; 3 Pac. Rep. 741; 3 West Coast Rep. 77. (Overruled in Seider v. Maxfield, 4 New Mex. 374; 20 Pac. Rep. 794.) 194. A description of the claim in the location certificate by reference to blazed trees, rock monument or a discovery shaft may be sufficient. Hansen v. Fletcher, 10 Utah, 266; 37 Pac. Rep. 480. 197. A location notice should contain a description of the ground located, and the same should be marked on the ground. Kahn v. Old Telegraph M. Co., 2 Utah, 174; 11 Mor. Min. Rep. 645. 198. A location notice need only give fairly and reasonably a description of the claim to guide subsequent locators. Mt. Diablo M. & M. Co. v. Callison, 5 Sawy. 439; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 616. 199. A location certificate must show the claim to be marked in some way to be admissible in evidence. Gilpin County M. Co. v. Drake, 8 Colo. 586; 9 Pac. Rep. 787. 200. A location certificate, in itself fatally defective, may go to the jury in connection with a correct amended certificate. Van Zandt v. Argentine M. Co., 2 McCrary, 159; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 441. 201. An original location notice, invalid for uncertainty of description, may be admitted in evidence in connection with an amended certificate, even though such amended certificate was not filed for record until after the commencement of suit, in order to show the date of the original acts of appropriation. The amended certificate is admissible, not as conferring any additional right, but as evidence descriptive of prior acquired rights. Strepy v. Stark, 7 Colo. 614; 5 Pac. Rep. 111; 4 West Coast Rep. 663. 202. A description of a placer claim in the recorded notice of location, giving the name of the claim and of adjoining claims, the size and its situation in a certain canyon, was held to be sufficient. Grady v. Early, 18 Cal. 108; 12 Mor. Min. Rep. 104. 203. A notice of location was held sufficient which described the claim as: "Commencing at a young black oak tree, about 400 feet northerly of an old cross-cut or drift, in the ravine; thence running southeasterly 1500 feet, to a black oak tree near a small ravine on the north side of turnback creek." Carter v. Bacigalupi, 23 Pac. Rep. 361. 204. A tree if sufficiently described may constitute a monument, reference to which may fix the position of the claim. Quimby V. Boyd, 8 Colo. 194; 6 Pac. Rep. 462. 205. Where the record of a location notice fixes the locus of the claim by reference to neighboring claims, it should be admitted in evidence. Russell v. Chumasero, 4 Mont. 309; 1 Pac. Rep. 713; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 508. 206. Where reference is made in the location certificate to stakes, the sufficiency of the notice should be left to a jury. O'Donnell v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 248; 19 Pac. Rep. 302. 207. If an original and an amended location certificate, taken together, give a sufficient description of the claim, they are admissible in evidence. McGinnis v. Egbert, 8 Colo. 41; 5 Pac. Rep. 653; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 329. 208. Where, prior to the act of 1866, a record of location was required by the Idaho statute, but it was not required nor customary to insert in the record notice the number of feet claimed, a record of location, made under that law and custom, should not be excluded from evidence because of failure to show the number of feet claimed. Connor v. McPhee, 1 Mont. 73; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 570. 209. A location notice, defective in that it fails to describe the claim with particularity, may, if connected with the location of the claim by evidence, be admitted for the purpose of showing the date of the initiation of a mining claim in Alaska. Bennett v. Harkrader, 158 U. S. 441. 210. The record of a location certificate is presumptive evidence that a discovery was made as alleged therein. Cheesman v. Shreeve, 40 Fed. Rep. 787. 211. The record of a location certificate is presumptive evidence of a valid location. Cheesman v. Hart, 42 Fed. Rep. 98. 212. A location certificate, when recorded, is prima facie proof of what is therein stated, according to statutory provisions. Jantzen v. Arizona Copper Co., 20 Pac. Rep. 93; Flick v. Gold Hill & Lee Mtn. M. Co. 20 Pac. Rep. 807. 213. A certified copy of location notice is proof only of performance of one of the four acts necessary to make a valid location, of the date of location, and is a description of the ground located. Strepy v. Stark, 7 Colo. 614; 5 Pac. Rep. 111; 4 West Coast Rep. 663. 214. A location notice is not of itself evi dence of legal possession, but is evidence of one step taken to acquire such possession. Thompson v. Lee, 8 Cal. 276; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 610. 215. Section 2324, United States Revised Statutes, governing the recording of mining claims, cannot be held to exclude parol proof of actual possession and the extent of that possession. Campbell v. Rankin, 99 U. S. 261; 12 Mor. Min. Rep. 257. 216. Parol evidence is admissible to define what tract is embraced in a location. Prince of Wales Lode, 2 C. L. O. 2. (Citing Kelley v. Taylor, 23 Cal. 14.) 217. Where a miner alleges that his recorded location notice does not correctly describe his claim, he must show clearly that his claim was plainly marked on the ground in order to defeat the claim of a subsequent locator of a conflicting claim. Pollard v. Shively, 5 Colo. 309; 2 Mor. Min. Rep. 229. 218. Where a location notice calls for a post to mark the corner, it is not admissible on the part of claimant to show said corner to be marked by a stump. Pollard v. Shively, 5 Colo. 309; 2 Mor. Min. Rep. 229. 219. In the absence of proof or an allegation to the contrary, it is to be presumed that the locator of a mine complied with the law before recording his location. Juniper Mine (B), 4 C. L. O. 114. 220. The affidavit to the correctness of a location notice required by the Montana statute must cover the date of location and all material facts required to be stated in the certificate, to render the location notice admissible in evidence. O'Donnell v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 248; 19 Pac. Rep. 302; McCowan v. Maclay, 16 Mont. 234; 40 Pac. Rep. 602. 221. An objection to the introduction of a location certificate not under oath was prop erly sustained by the court under the Mon- | the ground in dispute. Kelly v. Taylor, 23 tana act of May 8, 1873. Russell v. Hoyt, 4 Cal. 11 (1863). Mont. 412; McBurney v. Berry, 5 Mont. 300; 5 Pac. Rep. 867. 222. The statutes of Montana requiring a record to be made of a vein mining claim cannot be construed to include placer claims. The record of location was therefore no part of the evidence of title to a placer claim, and hence was inadmissible. Moxon v. Wilkinson, 2 Mont. 421; 12 Mor: Min. Rep. 602. 223. The location notice recited that the west end corners were marked by pine trees. The evidence disclosed that it was distinctly marked on the ground, but that there were stakes at the west end corners instead of pine trees. The notice referred to another claim as a permanent monument. Held, that this was a sufficient notice and properly admissible. Upton v. Larkin, 7 Mont. 449; 17 Pac. Rep. 728; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 404; S. C., 5 Mont. 600; 6 Pac. Rep. 66. 229. Where several persons post a notice of location on a mining claim, and sign the same as locators, a subsequent notice posted on the same claim, signed by some of the original locators and by other persons whose names did not appear in the first notice, is an original notice so far as the new locators are concerned, but does not affect the rights of the prior locators whose names are omitted, location by the persons whose names are nor operate as an abandonment of the first signed to both notices, and in an action by all the persons whose names are signed to the notices to quiet their title as against an adverse claimant, the second notice is admissi ble in evidence. Thompson v. Spray, 72 Cal. 528; 14 Pac. Rep. 182. 230. The title acquired by a valid location is presumed to continue in the absence of allegation and proof to the contrary. Renshaw v. Switzer, 6 Mont. 464; 13 Pac. Rep. 127; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 345. 224. A location certificate sworn to under the Montana statute, the date in the jurat of which is one year previous to the date of lo-be called as a witness to prove the invalidity 231. The grantor of a mining claim may cation as stated in the certificate, is inadmis sible unless the discrepancy is explained. Berg v. Koegel, 16 Mont. 266; 40 Pac. Rep. 605. 225. A location notice is proper evidence in connection with a patent to show the claim to which the patent refers. Goller v. Fett, 30 Cal. 481; 11 Mor. Min. Rep. 171. 226. Slight errors in a location certificate do not render it invalid or inadmissible in evidence. Gamer v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 371; 20 Pac. Rep. 654. 227. If all steps required by local rules and regulations have been taken such as are sufficient to impart notice to all, a locator's rights will not be affected by a mistake of the recorder, and such a mistake in the matter of description may be remedied by parol testimony. Myers v. Spooner, 55 Cal. 257; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 519. 228. Where the location of a mining claim is made both by posting notices and by desig nating fixed objects, such as trees, shafts and ditches, on or near its exterior boundaries, in an action between two companies involving the title to a portion of the ground, witnesses are not confined in their testimony to a statement of the contents of the notices, but may also state whether the location made included of the location sold. Johnson v. Parks, 10 Cal. 446; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 316. 232. Declarations of a party in possession and claiming title to a mining claim, made before parting with his interest, against the validity of the location of such claim, are admissible in evidence against the grantee of the declarant. Harrington v. Chambers, 3 Utah, 94; 1 Pac. Rep. 362. See 111 U. S. 350. 233. The existence of a known lode is a question of fact for the jury. "It cannot be said, as a matter of law in advance, how much gold or silver must be found in a vein before it will justify exploitation and be properly called a known vein." Iron Silver M. Co. v. Mike & Starr G. & S. M. Co., 143 U. S. 394. 234. After the issuance of a placer patent the Land Department will not assume that a lode was known to exist within the placer claim because of the fact that a lode claim was located therein prior to the placer application. The known existence of the lode at that date must be shown as a fact by proof. Valley Lode, 22 L. D. 317. 235. A patent for a lode claim which is situated within the boundaries of a placer claim, covered by a prior patent, is not conclusive of the fact that the lode so patented was known to exist at date of the application for the placer patent, and hence excepted from the placer patent. Iron Silver M. Co. v. Campbell, 135 U. S. 286. See 17 Colo. 267; 29 Pac. Rep. 513. 236. In assuming to issue patent for a lode claim alleged to have been known at the date of application for a placer patent (since issued), covering the land, the Department will proceed with caution, and will require the known existence of such lode at that date to be clearly shown. Departmental decision of May 13, 1896, In re Lucy L. Lode. 237. Proof of the location of a lode claim in a placer, at the date of the placer application for patent, is not proof of the known existence of the lode. Butte & Boston M. Co. v. Sloan, 16 Mont. 97; 40 Pac. Rep. 217. 238. An applicant for a lode claim within a patented placer must show affirmatively the existence of such mine and its location, and prove his possessory right and the value of work performed. Moyer v. Mike & Starr G. & S. M. Co., 10 C. L. O. 150. 239. Where entry is made of a lode claim in conflict with a patented placer claim, and it appears that the title under the placer patent to the ground in conflict is vested in the lode claimant, the known existence of the lode at the date of application for the placer patent may be shown by ex parte affidavits, as there could be no opposing party to render a hearing necessary. Valley Lode, 22 L. D. 713. 240. The fact that lodes were known to exist within a placer claim at date of application for placer patent will not warrant recommendation of suit to vacate the placer patent, where evidence of fraud is not clear, and the rights of bona fide purchasers have attached. The rights of persons owning lodes within the placer at date of the application for placer patent are not injured by the issuance of the patent. Departmental decision of Sept. 21, 1893, In re Haskill v. Upton. 241. Where the evidence submitted by the applicant for a placer patent shows the land applied for to be placer mining land. the character of the land cannot be questioned by one asserting an adverse claim who has not proceeded as directed by section 2326, United States Revised Statutes. Dahl v. Raunheim, 132 U. S. 260. | 11. Mining District Rules. (See MINING DISTRICT RULES, p. 70.) 242. The existence of miners' rules and regulations is not a matter of which a court can take judicial cognizance, but is a question of fact to be tried in the usual manner by a jury on testimony submitted. Parley's Park S. M. Co. v. Kerr, 130 U. S. 256; North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 6 Sawy. 299; 1 Fed. Rep. 522; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 529; Jupiter M. Co. v. Bodie Cons. M. Co., 7. Sawy. 96; 11 Fed. Rep. 666; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 411; Harvey v. Ryan, 42 Cal. 626; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 490; Sullivan v. Hense, 2 Colo. 424; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 487; Golden Fleece G. & S. M. Co. v. Cable Cons. G. & S. M. Co., 12 Nev. 312; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 120; 15 Nev. 450; Poujade v. Ryan, 21 Nev. 449; 33 Pac. Rep. 659; King v. Edwards, 1 Mont. 235; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 480; Ralston v. Plowman, 1 Idaho, 595; 5 Mor. Min. Rep. 160. 243. The existence of mining district regulations or customs must be proven like any other fact by the best evidence, and parol testimony as to a custom should not be admitted when it is shown that there are duly recorded regulations. Ralston v. Plowman, 1 Idaho, 595; 5 Mor. Min. Rep. 160. 244. The existence and tenor of mining district regulations and customs are questions for the jury. King v. Edwards, 1 Mont. 235; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 480. 245. Written mining district regulations once adopted are presumed to continue in force in absence of a showing to the contrary. North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 6 Sawy. 299; 1 Fed. Rep. 522; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 529; Jupiter M. Co. v. Bodie Cons. M. Co., 7 Sawy. 96; 11 Fed. Rep. 666; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 411; Riborado v. Quang Pang M. Co., 2 Idaho, 131; 6 Pac. Rep. 125; King v. Edwards, 1 Mont. 235; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 480. 246. It is presumed that the written laws of a mining district are in force, and any custom which conflicts with them must be clearly proved. King v. Edwards, 1 Mont. 235; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 480. 247. Mining district rules must be offered in evidence as a whole. English v. Johnson, 17 Cal. 107; 12 Mor. Min. Rep. 202. 248. While the local record of a mining community is the best evidence of the rules and customs governing mining interests, it is not the best or only evidence of priority or extent of actual possession. Campbell v. Rankin, 99 U. S. 261; 12 Mor. Min. Rep. 257. 249. The rules and customs of a mining district may be proven by a written rule if such exists, or by any competent evidence of a custom. Doe v. Waterloo M. Co., 70 Fed. Rep. 455. 250. The book containing local mining regulations is competent evidence under section 504, Civil Practice Act. Orr v. Haskell, 2 Mont. 225; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 492. 251. Evidence of the local mining rules must consist of a copy from the proper custodian, who must be shown to be empowered to give certified copies thereof, and to certify that such was a copy of the laws then in force in such district. Roberts v. Wilson, 1 Utah, 292; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 498. 252. When no mining regulations or customs are in force in a district where a min. ing claim is located, general customs then in force may be given in evidence upon the question of the reasonableness of its extent. A general uniform custom should be proved if one exists. Table Mtn. Tunnel Co. v. Stranahan, 20 Cal. 198 (1862); 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 457. 253. In the absence of a statute, a purported copy of mining district regulations must be shown by proper testimony to have come from the proper custody and be otherwise proven to be what it purports to be, and cannot be rendered admissible by submission of ex parte affidavits. Roberts v. Wilson, 1 Utah, 292; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 498. 254. Mining district regulations, to be considered, must be shown to be in force. Harvey v. Ryan, 42 Cal. 626; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 490; North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 6 Sawy. 299; 1 Fed. Rep. 522; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. .529. 255. Proof of a record of a location is inadmissible unless a record is shown to be provided for by local statute or regulation. Golden Fleece G. & S. M. Co. v. Cable Cons. G. & S. M. Co., 12 Nev. 312; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 120; 15 Nev. 450. 256. A local mining regulation or custom adopted after location of a claim cannot be given in evidence to limit the extent of a claim previously located. Table Mtn. Tunnel Co. v. Stranahan, 20 Cal. 198; 9 Mor. Min. Rep. 457; 31 Cal. 387 (1865). 257. Rules and customs of one district cannot be introduced to vary those of another district. King v. Edwards, 1 Mont. 235; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 480. 258. Whether or not a miner's rule or custom is in force at a given time is a question of fact for the jury. Jupiter M. Co. v. Bodie Cons. M. Co., 7 Sawy. 96; 11 Fed. Rep. 666; 4 Mor. Min. Rep. 411. in evidence are to be construed by the court, 259. Mining district laws when introduced and whether by virtue of such laws a forfeiture has accrued is a question of law and cannot be submitted to the jury. Fairbanks v. Woodhouse, 6 Cal. 33 (1856); 12 Mor. Min. Rep. 86. 260. The legality of mining district regulations must be decided by the court and not left to the jury. Ralston v. Plowman, 1 Idaho, 595; 5 Mor. Min. Rep. 160. 12. Patent. (See PATENT, p. 256.) 261. A patent for lands issued by the United States is conclusive in an action at law as to the legal title, and cannot be collaterally impeached in such action, unless it is absolutely void on its face or is issued without authority. St. Louis Sm. Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636; 11 Mor. Min. Rep. 673. (Quoting Patterson v. Winn, 11 Wheat. 380; and citing Hoofnagle v. Anderson, 7 Wheat. 212; Boardman v. Reed, 6 Pet. 342; Bagnell v. Broderick, 13 Pet. 448; Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72; Moore v. Robbins, 96 U. S. 535.) 262. While the general rule is that the decisions by the Land Department on questions of fact preliminary to the issuance of a patent are conclusive after the issuance of patent, "Where each party has a patent from the government, and the question is as to the superiority of the title under those patents, if this depends upon extrinsic facts not shown by the patents themselves, we think it is competent, in any judicial proceedings where this question of superiority of title arises, to establish it by proof of those facts." Iron Silver M. Co. v. Campbell, 135 U. S. 286. See, also, 17 Colo. 267; 29 Pac. Rep. 513. 263. A mining patent is conclusive proof of discovery and location according to law. Such patent takes effect by relation as of |