The statute is mandatory, and a substantial compliance with its provisions is necessary to perfect a valid location.1

Nevada.-The contents of this location certificate are the same as those required in Montana, with the addition of (6) location and description of each corner with the markings thereon. The certificate need not be verified.2

New Mexico.-A copy of the posted notice is required to be recorded. This must contain: (1) the names of the locators; (2) the intent to locate the claim; (3) a description by reference to some natural object or permanent monument.3

North Dakota.-The location certificate must contain: (1) name of lode; (2) name of locator; (3) date of location; (4) number of feet in length claimed on each side of the discovery shaft; (5) number of feet in width claimed on each side of lode; (6) general course of lode as near as may be; (7) such a description as shall identify the claim with reasonable certainty."

4

Oregon.-The location notice shall contain: (1) name of the lode or claim; (2) name of locator; (3) date of location; (4) number of linear feet claimed along the lode each way from the point of discovery with the width on each side of the lode; (5) the general course or strike of the vein as nearly as may be with

▲ Purdum v. Laddin, 23 Mont. 387, 59 Pac. 153. See, also, Sanders v. Noble, 22 Mont. 110, 55 Pac. 1037.

2 Comp. Laws (1900), § 210.

3

* Comp. Laws of 1884, § 1566; Id. 1897, § 2286; ante, § 353. Under this statute posting and discovery must be contemporaneous, no appreciable time being allowed between the discovery and the posting of the statutory notice. Moreover, the notice must be such as, when recorded, will fulfill the requirements of the federal statute.

Rev. Code 1895, § 1428; Id. 1899, § 1428.

Id. 1895, § 1429.

reference to some natural object or permanent monument in the vicinity thereof.1

South Dakota.-The requirements as to certificate of location are the same as in North Dakota.2

Utah.-The requirements as to the contents of the location notice are substantially the same as those of Oregon.3

Washington.-The location notice is required to contain: (1) name of locator; (2) date of location; (3) number of feet in length claimed on each side of the discovery; (4) the general course of the lode; (5) such a description by reference to natural objects or permanent monuments as will identify the claim.*

Wyoming. The certificate must contain: (1) name of the lode; (2) name of the locator or locators; (3) date of location; (4) length of claim along the vein, measured from center of discovery shaft, and general course of the vein as far as known; (5) amount of surface ground claimed on either side of the center of the discovery shaft or workings; (6) a description of the claim by such designation of natural or fixed objects as will identify the claim beyond question.5

381. Rules of construction applied. In the initiation of rights upon public mineral lands, as well as in the various steps taken by the miner to perfect his location, his proceedings are to be regarded with indulgence, and the notices required invariably receive at the hands

'Laws of 1898, p. 16, as amended-Laws of 1901, p. 140.

Comp. Laws of 1887, §§ 1999, 2000. Adopted by South DakotaLaws of 1890, ch. ev, § 1; Grantham's Annot. Stats. S. D. (1899), § 2658, as amended-Laws of 1899, p. 146.

3 Laws of 1899, p. 26.

4 Laws of 1899, p. 69, § 1.

5 Session Laws of 1890-91, ch. xlvi, pp. 179-180, amended-Laws of 1895, ch. cviii, § 1; Rev. Stats. (1899), § 2546.

of the courts a liberal construction. The mining laws are "to be expounded with as little differentiation as may be between former known actual customs of "miners and the formulated expressions of congress "based upon those customs in present positive law.”2

66

"The courts always construe these notices liberally, "and if by any intendment the proof can be reconciled "and made consistent with the statement contained in them, the jury will be allowed to say whether or not, upon the whole proof, the identification is sufficient."

66

66

To hold the locator to absolute technical strictness in all the minor details, would be practically to defeat the manifest end and object of the law. The pioneer prospector, as a rule, is neither a lawyer nor a surveyor. Neither mathematical precision as to measurement nor technical accuracy of expression in the preparation of notices is either contemplated or required. The law being designed for the encouragement and benefit of the miners should be liberally interpreted," "looking to substance, rather than shadow, and should be admin"istered on the lines of obvious common sense." Mere imperfections in the certificate will not render it void."

66

'Carter v. Bacigalupi, 83 Cal. 187, 23 Pac. 361; Farmington G. M. Co. v. Rhymney G. and C. Co., 20 Utah, 363, 77 Am. St. Rep. 913, 58 Pac. 832; Fissure M. Co. v. Old Susan M. Co., 22 Utah, 438, 63 Pac. 587; Wiltsee v. King of Arizona M. and M. Co. (Ariz.), 60 Pac. 896; Talmadge v. St. John, 129 Cal. 430, 62 Pac. 79; Morrison v. Regan (Idaho), 67 Pac. 955; Prince of Wales Lode, 2 Copp's L. O. 2, 3.

Sanders v. Noble, 22 Mont. 110, 55 Pac. 1037.

'Bramlett v. Flick, 23 Mont. 95, 57 Pac. 869.

Book v. Justice M. Co., 58 Fed. 106, 115; Smith v. Newell, 86 Fed. 56; Sanders v. Noble, 22 Mont. 110, 55 Pac. 1037, 1047; Wilson v. Triumph Cons. M. Co. (Utah), 56 Pac. 300; Farmington G. M. Co. v. Rhymney G. and C. Co., 20 Utah, 363, 58 Pac. 832; Morrison v. Regan (Idaho), 67 Pac. 955.

'Meydenbauer v. Stevens, 78 Fed. 787; Sanders v. Noble, 22 Mont. 110, 55 Pac. 1037, 1046; Bramlett v. Flick, 23 Mont. 95, 57 Pac. 869.

Cheesman v. Hart, 42 Fed. 98, 99.

'Bennett. Harkrader, 158 U. S. 441, 443, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 863; Farmington G. M. Co. v. Rhymney G. and C. Co., 20 Utah, 363, 77 Ami St. Rep. 913, 58 Pac. 832; Wells v. Davis, 22 Utah, 322, 62 Pac. 3.

As was said by the supreme court of Utah,

"If by any reasonable construction, in view of the surrounding circumstances, the language employed in "the description will impart notice to subsequent loca66 tors, it is sufficient."'1

In matters of description, calls that are erroneous will not destroy the validity of the notice or certificate, if by excluding them a sufficient description remain to enable its application to be ascertained.2

Thus, where a certificate of a location specified its situs as being in the wrong county, it being otherwise valid, and having been recorded in the right county, the erroneous statement was mere surplusage, and as such was rejected.3

In the absence of a local requirement to that effect, the certificate need not state either the district, county, or state in which the location is situated.*

And where a state statute requires two notices, one preliminary, and the other final, if the former contained the name of the county, and the final one omitted it, but refers to the preliminary notice, the defect is cured."

The position of the monuments as built upon the ground may be described in such a way as to direction as to be confusing. But if the other statutory requirements were complied with the notice would be sufficiently correct to allow its admission in evidence."

Wells v. Davis, 22 Utah, 322, 62 Pac. 3.

Duryea v. Boucher, 67 Cal. 141, 7 Pac. 421; Smith v. Newell, 86 Fed. 56; Bramlett v. Flick, 23 Mont. 95, 57 Pac. 869.

Metcalf v. Prescott, 10 Mont. 283, 25 Pac. 1037. Note the difference in case of notice of application for patent where this defect would render such notice void. Wright v. Sioux Cons. M. Co., 29 L. D. 154, S. C. 29 L. D. 289.

Carter v. Bacigalupi, 83 Cal. 187, 23 Pac. 361. 'Talmadge v. St. John, 129 Cal. 430, 62 Pac. 79.

Kinney v. Fleming (Ariz.), 56 Pac. 723; Providence G. M. Co. v. Burke (Ariz.), 57 Pac. 641; Bramlett v. Flick, 23 Mont. 95, 57 Pac. 869.

A mistake in the certificate as to the direction and course, such as "northerly" instead of "northeasterly," the description being aided by monuments on the ground, is of no moment.1

The certificate is not required to show the precise boundaries of the claim as marked on the ground, but it is sufficient if it contains directions, which, taken in connection with such boundaries, will enable a person of reasonable intelligence to find the claim and trace the lines.2

The object of any notice at all being to guide the subsequent locator and afford him information as to the extent of the claim of the prior locator, whatever does this fairly and reasonably should be held to be a good notice. Great injustice would follow if, years after a miner had located a claim and taken possession, and worked upon it in good faith, his notice of location were to be subject to any very nice criticism.3

2382. Variation between calls in certificate and monuments on the ground.-When it is once conceded that a recorded certificate of location is a statutory in

1 Book v. Justice M. Co., 58 Fed. 106, 115; Meydenbauer v. Stevens, 78 Fed. 787; Sanders v. Noble, 22 Mont. 110, 55 Pac. 1037, 1046; Bramlett v. Flick, 23 Mont. 95, 55 Pac. 869; Wiltsee v. King of Arizona M. Co. (Ariz.), 60 Pac. 896.

Brady v. Husby, 21 Nev. 153; Duncan v. Fulton (Colo. App.), 61 Pac. 244; Bramlett v. Flick, 23 Mont. 95, 57 Pac. 869; Smith v. Newell, 86 Fed. 56; Kinney v. Fleming (Ariz.), 56 Pac. 723; Providence G. M. Co. v. Burke (Ariz.), 57 Pac. 641; Morrison v. Regan (Idaho), 67 Pac. 955; Gamer v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 371, 20 Pac. 654; Upton v. Larkin, 7 Mont. 449, 17 Pac. 728; Flavin v. Mattingly, 8 Mont. 242, 19 Pac. 384.

The adoption in Montana of a more exacting law (Pol. Code of 1895, § 3612) has rendered the earlier Montana cases inapplicable in that state. Purdum v. Laddin, 23 Mont. 387, 59 Pac. 153. And see Clearwater etc. Ry. Co. v. San Garde (Idaho), 61 Pac. 137; Brown v. Levan (Idaho), 46 Pac. 661, (explained in Morrison v. Regan (Idaho), 67 Pac. 955).

3 Mt. Diablo M. and M. Co. v. Callison, 5 Saw. 439, Fed. Cas. No. 9886; Talmadge v. St. John, 129 Cal. 430, 62 Pac. 79.