3. Discuss the relation existing between mining law and the law of real property.

Page 248.

1. Compare the civil law rule and the common law rule as to the ownership of mines.

Pages 249-250.

1. What were "Royal Mines"?

Pages 251-252.

1. What are the sources of mining law in this country?

CHAPTER II.

Pages 253-254.

1. Give a synopsis of the provision of the Federal Statutes relative to the securing of mining claims.

Pages 255-257.

1. What are rules of mining districts and what force have they?

CHAPTER III.

Page 259.

1. What mineral lands are open to location by citizens

of the United States?

1. What are the provisions of the Federal Statutes as to the location of a lode claim?

Page 267.

1. When is a vein or lode "in place"?

Page 268.

1. What "discovery" is necessary to serve as the basis for a location?

Page 269.

1. What is the extent of a locator's rights of possession and enjoyment?

Pages 270-271.

1. What is a tunnel claim?

Page 272.

1. What are placer claims? 2. How are they secured?

Pages 273-275.

1. How may coal land be acquired?

CHAPTER VI.

Page 277.

1. What are the formal parts of a location?

Page 278.

1. What is the proper form of location notice?

Page 279.

1. How must the notice be recorded?

CHAPTER VII.

Page 281..

1. What estate is secured by location?

Pages 282-283.

1. What are extra-lateral rights?

Page 284.

1. What rights are acquired under a defective loca

tion?

Page 285.

1. What are cross veins?

2.

What are the respective rights of the parties in such cases?

Page 286.

1. How may a placer claim containing a lode be

located?

CHAPTER VIII.

Page 287.

1. What is abandonment of a claim?

Pages 288-289.

1. What is the result of the failure to perform annual

labor?

Page 290.

1. How may a tenant in common forfeit his claim to

a co-owner?

Page 291.

1. What are the two kinds of re-location?

CHAPTER IX.

Pages 293-295.

1. How may a mining patent be secured?

CHAPTER X.

Pages 297-298.

1. What are the respective rights of the parties when the surface and mineral estates are severed?

APPENDIX A.

TO REAL PROPERTY.

(This Appendix is taken from the Appendix to Thomas' Edition of Coke's Institutes, Edition of 1836.)

THE FEUDAL SYSTEM.

It remains to say something of the revolutions of the feud in the jurisprudence of our own nation.

1. AS TO THE TIME WHEN IT WAS INTRODUCED. Whether feuds prevailed in England, before the Norman conquest, has been the subject of much dispute. In 1607, an event happened, which occasioned the question to be discussed, with a profusion of learning. Several estates within the counties of Roscommon, Sligo, Mayo, and Galway, being unsettled as to their titles, king James the 1st, by commission, under the great seal, authorized certain commissioners, of whom Sir Henry Spelman was one, to make grants of these estates. In exercise of this authority, the commissioners made a grant of lands in Mayo to Lord Dillon. King Charles the 1st issued a commission, to inquire into defective titles: and orders were given, that all persons, who had any of the estates in question by letters patent from the crown, should produce the letters, or an enrollment of them, before the lord deputy and council. In pursuance of these orders, the letters patent to Lord Dillon were produced. It was found, that the letters were granted to them "to the Lord Dillon and his heirs, to hold by knight service, as of his majesty's castle of Dublin." It was admitted, that the commissioners had exceeded their commission, in reserving a mean tenure, to the prejudice of the crown, when they ought to have reserved, either an express tenure, by knight service, in capite, or not to have mentioned any tenure; in which case, the law would have implied a tenure in capite. The question, therefore, was, whether the deficiency of the tenure so far affected the grant, as wholly to destroy the legal effect of it; or, whether the letters patent might not be good, as to the land, and void only as to the tenure. The case was argued, several days, by counsel, on both sides, and was afterwards referred to the judges. They were required by the lord deputy and council, to consider of it, and to return their resolution. The judges disagreeing in opinion, it was thought necessary, for public satisfaction, to have it argued solemnly by them all. This was done, accordingly. Those who contended for the validity of the letters patent, urged, among other arguments, that tenures in capite were brought into England by the conquest, but, that grants were by the common law; and, being more ancient than tenures, must, of necessity, be distinct from the thing granted. From this, they inferred, that though the reservation were void, the grant itself might be good. In the course of their arguments, on this point, they observed,