that the authority be given in advance, as, like all other ques tions of agency, it may arise from the adoption of the fruits. § 273. Same subject Authority unnecessary — Ratification General discussion.- From this doctrine of agency, extended as shown in the last section, flows the authority, recognized by statute, even to the making of affidavits in certain cases, that whatever the principal might do if personally present may be done by an agent with the same effect. Of course, this is with reference to implied authority or such authority as the law recognizes as existing, without reference to the special agreement of the parties, because, where they have defined their relationship in writing, that tells its own story and defines itself. Pursuing this principle, and within the lines of the statute, a location may be made in the name of another than the actual locator, and when so made, the person in whose name it is made becomes vested with the legal title to the claim. And in an early case in Arizona, it was held by a very able judge that the law implies authority in one person to locate a mining claim in the name of another from the fact of making the location - a singular rule, but undoubtedly true, and that no authority is necessary. And in a Colorado case it was held that any citizen who is authorized to locate mining claims on the public domain of the United States may perform all the necessary acts of appropriation through the agency of others. It is common prac tice in the mining states for one person to locate any number of friends in the same location with him, and, we believe, of frequent occurrence wherever mining operations are carried on or claims are located." Schultz v. Keeler, 2 Idaho, 532, v. Patterson (Idaho), 42 Pac. Rep. 21 Pac, Rep. 418. 2 Morton v. Solambo Copper M. Co., 26 Cal. 527. 3 Van Valkenburg v. Huff, 1 Nev. 142; Moore v. Hammerstag, 109 Cal 122, 41 Pac. Rep. 805; Dunlap 504. 4 Rush v. French, 1 Ariz. 99, 25 Pac. Rep. 816. "Murley v. Ennis, 2 Colo. 300. 6 Morton v. Solambo Copper M. Co., supra; Book v. Justice M. Co., 58 Fed. Rep. 106. § 274. Authority of agents-Amending and completing locations.- As indicated in a previous section, the authority of the agent in mining matters may and often does rest upon much less satisfactory proof than would be required in ordinary commercial transactions, much less respecting other classes of real estate. Thus, as we have seen, the authority will often be presumed. A like authority exists to make necessary amendments or to complete a location. For example, where the location of a mine upon which the discov erer posted a written notice claiming a right to locate fifteen hundred feet on the lead, and three hundred feet on each side, is completed by other persons marking the boundaries and posting a new location notice, under an agreement by which they were to complete the location for one-half the claim, it inures to the benefit of all, although descriptive terms were applied in the new notice to the name given in the first notice. So additional territory, embraced in an additional location certificate of a mining claim, filed by a trustee appointed by the owners of the original location, to obtain patent to the mine, inures to the benefit of all the cestuis que trust instead of the trustee alone. This, under a statute requiring an additional location certificate to be based on the original certificate, when it relates back to the first location.5 § 275. Location by minors considered and held to be valid. So far as we are advised, or have been able to ascertain from the books, the question has been raised but once as to the legality of a location made by a minor. Upon principle, we see no reason why an emancipated infant may not lawfully acquire title to a mining claim by location; the only difference between an emancipated and unemancipated infant, in any case, would be as between him and his parent. In a case in California, this subject was taken up and 4 Hallack v. Traber, 23 Colo. 14, 1 Ante, § 272. 2 Rush v. French (Ariz.), 25 Pac. 46 Pac. Rep. 110. Rep. 816. 5 Gen. Statutes of Colorado of 3 Doe v. Waterloo M. Co., 70 Fed. 1883, § 2409; Hallack v. Traber, Rep. 455, 17 C. C. A. 190. supra. thoughtfully dealt with by Mr. Commissioner Hayne, whose opinion became the decision of department one of the supreme court. We extract the following from it: "Does the fact that these plaintiffs were minors at the time of the location invalidate the notice as to them? We have not been referred to any decisions which hold that it does. No requirement that the citizen shall be of any particular age is expressed, and unless we are prepared to affirm that minors are not citizens, we do not see how we can say that they are not entitled to the benefit of the act. (The proof showed that the locators were born in the state of California.) This conclusion is strengthened by the circumstance that in some instances the statute expressly requires that the citizen shall be of age. Thus, in reference to coal lands, the provision is that 'every person above the age of twenty-one years who is a citizen of the United States,' etc.; so with reference to homesteads, the provision is that 'every person over the age of twenty-one years and a citizen,' etc. The expression of a requirement as to age in some instances and the omission of it in others is significant. Nor is there any reason in the nature of things why a minor may not make a valid location After the preliminary steps are taken, all that is required is that a certain amount of work shall be done. If the minor cannot do it, he can get any one to do it for him; the condition imposed by the statute is fulfilled. If he cannot, the claim lapses and is open to relocation by others. It may be added that so far as we know it is the practice of many mining communities for minors to locate claims." 1 The legislature of the state of Nevada, as early as 1869, recognized the right of minors not only to locate mining claims, but to convey them to whomsoever they might elect.2 § 276. Summary of this part, and general restatement of it. The authorities collected and reviewed in this part 1 Thompson v. Spray, 72 Cal. 528, Comp. Laws 1900, §§ 2723-24. See 14 Pac. Rep. 182. Appendix "B." 2 Act approved Feb. 27, 1869, of our work demonstrate, when considered in the retrospect, and carefully summarized, the following condition of the law: (a) That the public mineral lands of the United States are open to location and purchase, and by purchase is meant patenting, by citizens of the United States and those who have declared their intention to become citizens, including corporations organized in, and chartered by, any one of the states or territories. (b) That locations may be made by aliens, and that the location is not void but voidable, and that the irregularity or defect of such location may be cured by (1) the alien declaring his intention to become a citizen, (2) the alien conveying the property to a citizen, or to a corporation considered as a citizen, that is organized in one of the states or territories, (3) by the estate being cast by descent or by will, which for this purpose is a species of conveyance, upon a citizen, or one who has declared his intention to become such. (c) That the question of citizenship can only be raised by inquest of office, or by proceedings in the nature of inquest of office, and this in one of two ways: (1) by the government, which may make the inquiry at any time, (2) by an ap plicant for patent for conflicting ground, or by the claimant himself applying for patent, either of which proceedings is considered, pro hac vice, as in the nature of inquest of office. (d) That except as raised in one of the ways pointed out in the preceding subdivision of this section, the alien may take and hold until office found. (e) That locations may be made by agents, including partners under regular mining partnership, or grub-stake contracts, with the same force and effect as if made by an interested party or principal. (f) Locations may be made by minors. (g) In Mexico there is no special qualification required. (h) In some parts of Canada a free miner's license is required. PART VI. OF THE CHARACTER, QUALITY AND SIZE OF A LO- CHAPTER I. OF QUARTZ, VEIN OR LODE CLAIMS, AND HEREIN OF THE DEFINITION OF “LODE,” “VEIN," "ROCK IN PLACE," "STRIKE OR COURSE." § 279. Preliminary observations and of general size of claims locatable as a vein or lode, and what locatable-Tailings bed. 280. Size of lode claims in placer ground. 281. Similar conditions in Canada. 282. Definition of lode, ledge, vein - General observations - The statute-Terms often synonymous - Definitions should be broad. 283. Other broad definitions, legal, technical and scientific-Origin of the term "lode" - Equivalents used elsewhere. 284. Same-Scientific and special definitions. 285. Other definitions of many of the great mining judges— All forms of rock in place covered by vein or lode. 286. Further definitions—“Broad vein cases" and zone theory. 289. Same subject-Strike or course of the vein as understood by the miners and as defined by the judges in the mining states. $279. Preliminary observations and of general size of claims locatable as a vein or lode, and what locatableTailings bed. It has already been demonstrated in this work that only public mineral lands of the United States are open to location and purchase under the laws of con |