of land, held under agricultural patent, upon which parties were engaged in mining, such a "claim" as is lienable.1 But a consolidation of numerous mining loca tions, held and operated under one ownership, the aggregation being designated by a general name, such as the "Red Cloud mine," is a "mining claim," and the whole claim is lienable.2

While the law prescribes a limitation as to the size of a location, there is no limitation to the number of claims one person may hold by purchase. A single location is a "claim," as that term is used in the Revised Statutes. But, as we have heretofore seen, "claim" may, colloquially speaking, embrace a number of locations.

328. Acts necessary to constitute a valid lode location under the Revised Statutes, in the absence of supplemental state legislation and local district rules. -It is not necessary that any supplemental state legislation or local district regulations should exist. Where they do not exist, a location may be perfected by following the requirements of the federal law. The acts to be performed in the absence of state or district regulations are few and simple. "The intricacies are those found by the courts of the states and territories wherein "mineral lands are situated arising out of complex "state or territorial legislation supplementing the fed"eral laws. 994 The requisites of such location are:

66

(1) The discovery;

'Morse v. De Ardo, 107 Cal. 622, 40 Pac. 1018.

Tredinnick v. Red Cloud M. Co., 72 Cal. 78, 84, 13 Pac. 152. See, also, Malone v. Big Flat G. M. Co., 76 Cal. 583, 18 Pac. 772; Hamilton v. Delhi M. Co., 118 Cal. 148, 50 Pac. 378.

3 St. Louis Smelting Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636, 648; Malone v. Big Flat G. M. Co., 76 Cal. 578, 583, 18 Pac. 772.

Sanders v. Noble, 22 Mont. 110, 55 Pac. 1037; Upton v. Larkin, 7 Mont. 449, 17 Pac. 728.

(2) The marking of the location on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced.1

3

No notice need be posted 2 nor recorded; no particular kind of marking is required so long as the "bound"aries may be readily traced." The taking and holding of actual possession is wholly unnecessary, and this applies to all classes of locations, wherever made, and whether state legislation or local rules exist or not. Actual possession is no more necessary for the protection of title acquired by a valid mining location than it is for any other grant from the United States. Such a discovery having been made as will satisfy the law," the marking of the location on the ground including the place of his discovery completes the location and clothes the locator with the complete possessory title. No development or discovery work is required. In fact, no labor need be performed nor improvements made until within the year commencing on the first day of January succeeding the date of the location.®

? 329. The requisites of a valid lode location under the Revised Statutes where supplemental state legislation exists. Most of the precious-metal-bearing states have availed themselves of the privilege of supplement

1

Upton v. Larkin, 7 Mont. 449, 17 Pac. 728; Sanders v. Noble, 22 Mont. 110, 55 Pac. 1037; Erwin v. Perigo, 93 Fed. 608.

* Post, § 350; Perigo v. Erwin, 85 Fed. 904; Harris v. Kellogg, 117 Cal. 484, 49 Pac. 708; Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U. S. 45, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1110; McCarthy v. Speed, 11 S. Dak. 362, 77 N. W. 590; Bramlett v. Flick, 23 Mont. 95, 57 Pac. 869.

Post, §§ 389-392; Perigo v. Erwin, 85 Fed. 904; Magruder v. Oregon and Cal. R. R. Co., 28 L. D. 174.

Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279, 283; Harris v. Kellogg, 117 Cal. 484, 49 Pac. 708; Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U. S. 45, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1110; McCarthy v. Speed, 11 S. Dak. 362, 77 N. W. 590; Bramlett v. Flick, 23 Mont. 95, 57 Pac. 869.

Post, § 336.

Amend. to § 2324 Rev. Stats. Jan. 22, 1880, 21 Stats. at Large, 61. Lindley on M.-38

ing federal legislation, and have adopted systems more or less comprehensive. We have heretofore given an outline of the general scope and character of this legislation,1 from which it will be readily observed that in some of the states certain requirements exist which are not found in others. A location made with all the formalities required by the federal statute only might be valid in California, but would not be in Colorado. Where state laws or local regulations exist which are not repugnant to the federal statutes, compliance with such supplemental law is requisite to the validity of a location.2 As state laws form an important element of the federal system in their respective jurisdictions, it is necessary to a satisfactory presentation of the subject under consideration to give them their proper place, distributed under the several appropriate heads. We think the object may be intelligently accomplished by selecting as a type of such state legislation the local code which is the most comprehensive, and note the differences between that code and the existing laws of other states and territories. In this way we shall be enabled to present, under appropriate subdivisions approaching methodical arrangement, the rule in each state or territory touching the subject immediately under consideration, in connection with the treatment of the requirements of the congressional laws. For this purpose we select the state of Colorado, and will divide our subject, for purpose of treatment, on the basis of the Colorado mining laws, noting wherein the requirements of other states are similar or are different.

Under the laws of Colorado the following acts are required to complete a valid lode location:

2 Ante, 88 248-252.

'Purdum v. Laddin, 23 Mont. 387, 59 Pac. 153; Belk v. Meagher, 104 Fed. 284; Garfield M. Co. v. Hammer, 6 Mont. 53, 8 Pac. 153.

(1) The discovery;

(2) The sinking of a discovery shaft of certain prescribed dimensions, or its equivalent;

(3) The posting of a notice;

(4) The marking of surface boundaries in a certain specified manner;

(5) The making of a location certificate;

(6) The recording of such certificate.1

A substantial compliance with the requirements of the laws, federal and state, as well as local rules, where they exist and are not repugnant to state or federal legislation, is a condition precedent to the completion of a valid location.2

Mere possession without complying with the law confers no rights.3

In the nature of things, we cannot deal with local district regulations in detail. We have heretofore outlined our views as to their legitimate scope and the extent to which they may be operative. Where they exist and are in harmony with state and federal legislation they are to be considered and construed in the light

'Strepey v. Stark, 7 Colo. 614, 5 Pac. 111.

Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279, 284; Upton v. Larkin, 5 Mont. 600, 6 Pac. 66; Garfield M. and M. Co. v. Hammer, 6 Mont. 53, 8 Pac. 153; Strepey v. Stark, 7 Colo. 614, 5 Pac. 111; McKinstry v. Clark, 4 Mont. 370, 395, 1 Pac. 759; Noyes v. Black, 4 Mont. 527, 2 Pac. 769; Gleeson v. Martin White M. Co., 13 Nev. 443; Sweet v. Webber, 7 Colo. 443, 4 Pac. 752; Lalande v. McDonald, 2 Idaho, 283, 13 Pac. 347; Lockhart v. Wills, 9 N. Mex. 344, 54 Pac. 336; Kendall v. San Juan M. Co., 144 U. S. 658, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 779; Nevada Sierra Oil Co. v. Home Oil Co., 98 Fed. 673; Copper Globe M. Co. v. Allman (Utah), 64 Pac. 1019; Purdum v. Laddin, 23 Mont. 387, 59 Pac. 153.

Ante, 88 216-219; Horswell v. Ruiz, 67 Cal. 111, 7 Pac. 197; Morenhaut v. Wilson, 52 Cal. 263; Chapman v. Toy Long, 4 Saw. 28, Fed. Cas. No. 2610; Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279, 284; Jordan v. Duke (Ariz.), 36 Pac. 896.

'Ante, §§ 268-275.

of the general principles, which will be enunciated in reference to state legislation in the succeeding articles.

330. Order in which acts are performed immaterial-Time, when non-essential.-The order in which the several acts required by law are to be performed is non-essential, in the absence of intervening rights.1

The marking of the boundaries may precede the discovery, or the discovery may precede the marking; and if both are completed before the rights of others intervene, the earlier act will inure to the benefit of the locator.2 But if the boundaries are marked before discovery, the location will date from the time discovery is made.3

The supreme court of Colorado has thus expressed the rule:

"The validity of the location of a mining claim is "made to depend primarily upon the discovery of a "vein or lode within its limits. Section 2320, Rev.

66

Stats., U. S. Until such discovery, no rights are "acquired by location. The other requisites which "must be observed in order to perfect and keep alive a "valid location are not imperative, except as against the

1

1 Golden Terra v. Mahler, 4 Morr. Min. Rep. 390; Thompson v. Spray, 72 Cal. 528, 14 Pac. 182; Gregory v. Pershbaker, 73 Cal. 109, 14 Pac. 401; Perigo v. Erwin, 85 Fed. 904; Erwin v. Perigo, 93 Fed. 608; Jupiter M. Co. v. Bodie Cons. M. Co., 11 Fed. 666, 676; North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 1 Fed. 522, 531.

Erwin v. Perigo, 93 Fed. 608; Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co., 112 Fed. 4, 14; Reins v. Raunheim, 28 L. D. 526; Olive Land and D. Co. v. Olmstead, 103 Fed. 568; Beals v. Cone, 27 Colo. 473, 62 Pac. 948; Brewster v. Shoemaker, 28 Colo. 176, 63 Pac. 309; Cedar Canyon Cons. M. Co. v. Yarwood (Wash.), 67 Pac. 749.

Beals v. Cone, 27 Colo. 473, 83 Am. St. Rep. 92, 62 Pac. 948; Brewster v. Shoemaker, 28 Colo. 176, 63 Pac. 309; Tuolumne C. M. Co. v. Maier, 134 Cal. 583, 66 Pac. 863; Erwin v. Perigo, 93 Fed. 608; Cosmos Exploration Co. v. Gray Eagle Oil Co., 112 Fed. 4; Jupiter M. Co. v. Bodie Cons. M. Co., 11 Fed. 666, 676; Reins v. Raunheim, 28 L. D. 526; North Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 1 Fed. 522, 531; Nevada Sierra Oil Co. v. Home Oil Co., 98 Fed. 671.