Slike strani
PDF
ePub

for a separate and distinct portion of mineral land, parties who desire their adverse claims considered must file a separate and distinct adverse claim against each application separately.

Adverse claimants who desire to have their adverse claims considered, must strictly comply with the law and instructions, and file with the local land officers, within the time prescribed by law and in proper form, a separate and distinct adverse claim against each application which it is alleged conflicts with the premises owned by such adverse claimants.

Where applicants for patents strictly comply with the law and instructions, the adverse claimants will also be required to strictly conform to the instructions of this office and the laws of Congress.

In the cases under consideration, it is not clear how the protestants could in any way be injured, or their rights prejudiced, by the issuance of patents as applied for; as the New Era location is of much later date than that of either the Zella, Rockwell, or Mountain Tiger mines, the mining act of May 10, 1872, sec. 14, providing what the respective rights of the parties shall be where "two or more veins intersect or cross each other."

The protest of Wm. W. Daly et al. is not, in the opinion of this office, such an adverse claim as is contemplated by the mining act, and cannot operate as a bar to issuance of a patent, as applied for.

On the eighth April, 1873, George C. Bates, as attorney for W. C. Anderson, filed a protest against the application for patent for the Zella mine. It appears from the papers in the case, that, on the first November, 1870, James Keller, George Carleton, J. E. Dickerson, E. J. Elzy, D. E. Cameron and W. C. Anderson, located twelve hundred linear feet of the Zella lode; and that on the twenty-sixth November, 1870, W. C. Anderson sold his interest in said mine to Geo. W. Eaton and Joseph Leighton, and that the applicant for patent has the record title to the whole twelve hundred feet, by purchase.

It appears that W. C. Anderson was not of age at the date of said location, and that he is now but twenty years of age. In his said protest, he claims that his conveyance of said premises was null and void, he being a minor at the date thereof.

It appears that W. C. Anderson made this location in his own name. If he, being a minor, was doing business for himself and in his own name, as appears from the testimony, he had the right to dispose of whatever he acquired by virtue of said location.

If it was necessary for his guardian to execute the deed

of conveyance to Eaton and Leighton, herein before referred to, it was also necessary that his guardian should assert the adverse claim to said application for patent.

It appears that W. C. Anderson, on the second December, 1872, by his guardian, executed a deed for said two hundred feet in the Zella mine to the applicant for patent. From the foregoing, it is evident that whatever right, title, or interest W. C. Anderson may have had to the Zella lode by virtue of location, is now in the applicant for patent, and the protest asserted by him is not, in the opinion of this office, such an adverse claim as would warrant this office in suspending proceedings upon the application for patent.

You will inform all parties in interest of this decision, etc.

Very respectfully, etc.,

W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner.

Application Rejected on account of Insufficient Notice. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., June 18, 1873. Register and Receiver, Salt Lake City, Utah:

GENTLEMEN: This office has carefully examined the papers in case of the application of I. C. Bateman, for patent for the Red Warrior lode, West Mountain mining district, Utah.

The application for patent for said mine bears date October 4, 1871, and the indorsement made by the Register thereon, shows that the notice of intention to apply for a patent and a diagram of the claim, were posted in his office, from the fourth October, 1871, to the eighth January, 1872.

By the affidavit of John R. Murphy and Benjamin F. Oliver, it appears that a copy of said notice and diagram was posted upon the claim, from the fifth October, 1871, to the fifth January, 1872.

By the affidavit of Frank Kenyan, it appears that the notice was published in the Salt Lake Review, for a period of ninety days, commencing September 9, 1871.

In the application for patent, in the notices and diagrams posted upon the claim, and in the office of the Register, and in the published notice, the claim is described as follows:

"The discovery monument of said claim is located about two miles south-east from the town of Bingham, at the head of Bingham cañon, at or near the furnace-site to the undersigned belonging. * * * From the discovery monu

ment said claim runs N. 36° 30′ E. 600 feet and S. 36° 30′ W. 600 feet," etc.

On the twenty-ninth April, 1872, Thomas Fitch, attorney for the applicant for patent, informed this office, by letter, that the location of the mine had been given inaccurately in the application for patent, "the mines being described as in a south-easterly direction from Bingham City, whereas it should be south-westerly."

From an abstract of title, certified to by the District Recorder, it appears that I. C. Bateman, and four others, located 1200 linear feet of the Red Warrior lode, on the twenty-fourth January, 1871.

There is no record evidence on file in this office, to show that Mr. Bateman has ever purchased the rights of his colocators, or that he has the record title to more than 240 linear feet of the Red Warrior lode.

From the foregoing, it will be seen that the proceedings in the matter of this application for patent have been very informal and irregular, and not in accordance with the law and instructions.

This application for patent was filed under the act of July 26, 1866.

Said act requires the applicant for patent to file with the Register and Receiver an application for patent, with a diagram of the premises sought to be patented, and "that upon the filing of the diagram, as provided in the second section of this act, and posting the same in a conspicuous place on the claim, together with a notice of intention to apply for a patent, the Register of the land office shall publish a notice of the same, in a newspaper published nearest to the location of said claim, and shall also post such notice in his office, for the period of ninety days.

In the case under consideration the notice was published nearly a month prior to the date of the application, and for the same length of time before the notices and diagrams were posted on the claim and in the office of the Register, and not during the ninety days of posting notices.

The description and location of the premises as given in said notices and diagrams were very meager, and acknowledged by the attorney for the applicant to be incorrect.

The evidence submitted by the applicant shows that he has the record title to 240 linear feet only, while the application is for 1200 feet.

In view of these informalities and irregularities, this office would not be authorized to issue a patent upon said application even though it had been clear of adverse claims, and the same is accordingly rejected.

On the fourth of November, 1871, Wm. Adams and A. P. Sanders, filed an adverse claim to said application for

in the District Court

patent, and commenced suit of the Third Judicial District, Utah, to determine the respective rights of the parties in interest to the premises in dispute.

By the certificate of the clerk of said court it appears that in November, 1872, a judgment was rendered dismissing the complainants' bill in said suit.

On the second of January, 1872, and before the expiration of the ninety days notice by publication and posting, John W. Ken filed an adverse claim to said application. This adverse claim would have been sufficient to require that the matter be referred to the local courts for adjudication had not the application for patent been rejected.

On the twenty-seventh of March, 1872, Peter Lorenson et al., filed a protest against said application for patent, which could not have been considered if the application for patent has been allowed to proceed, as the same was filed after the ninety days notice by posting and publication had expired.

You will inform all parties in interest, and acknowledge the receipt hereof.

Very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., October 8, 1873. Register and Receiver, Salt Lake City, Utah:

GENTLEMEN: On the eighteenth of June last, this office rejected the application of I. C. Bateman for patent for the Red Warrior lode, West Mountain mining district, Utah, for the following reasons, to-wit:

First. On account of insufficient and erroneous description of the premises in the application for patent, the published notice, and the notices and diagrams posted upon the claim and in the office of the Register.

Second. Because the notice was not published the same ninety days that the notices and diagrams were posted; the notice having been published on the ninth of September, 1871, and for ninety days thereafter, while the notices and diagrams were posted upon the claim October 5, and in the Register's office on the fourth of October, 1871.

Third. For the reason that there was no record evidence on file to show that Mr. Bateman had the possession, or the right of possession, to 1200 linear feet of the Red Warrior lode, the abstract of title showing that Mr. Bateman had the record title to 240 linear feet only.

On the seventh instant, Mr. Bateman made application for a rehearing of the case, and filed an abstract of title from the office of the County Recorder, which shows that the applicant has now the record title to 1200 linear feet of said lode. It also shows that the record title to said lode was in D. E. Buel and I. C. Bateman at the date of the application for patent, and that the applicant became the sole owner of said lode on the twenty-second of August, 1872, nearly eleven months after a patent had been applied for. Mr. Bateman also filed an affidavit in the case.

After a careful consideration of the matter, said application for a rehearing is overruled, and you will so inform all parties in interest.

Very respectfully,

WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner.

Locations when a Vein exceeds Fifteen Hundred Feet in

Length.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., June 17, 1873. Messrs. HOYT and BROTHERS, Helena, Montana:

GENTLEMEN: Referring to your letter of the thirtieth ultimo, I have to state that the mining act of May 10th, 1872, declares that, "a mining claim located after the passage of this act, whether located by one or more persons, may equal but shall not exceed one thousand five hundred feet in length along the vein or lode."

But there is no provision of law to prevent parties from locating other claims upon the same lode, outside of the first location made on the lode or vein.

If a lode or vein three thousand feet in length is discovered, two locations may be made, each of fifteen hundred feet, thereon.

Very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

W. W. CURTIS, Acting Commissioner.

Mining Claims in Town-Sites.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, D. C., June 19, 1873. Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado:

GENTLEMEN: As you were informed on the thirteenth instant, applications for patents for mining claims, situate within the exterior boundaries of town-sites, applications

« PrejšnjaNaprej »