66

66

"expenditures are required exceeding the value of a single claim, and yet without such expenditures the "claim could not be successfully worked. In such cases "it has always been the practice for the owners of the "different locations to combine and work them as one general claim; and expenditures which may be necessary for the development of all the claims may then "be made on one of them. . . . In other words, the law permits a general system to be adopted for adjoining "claims held in common, and in such case the expenditures required may be made or the labor be per"formed upon any one of them."1

66

66

In order to receive the benefit of this provision of the law, certain conditions are essential:—

(1) The claims must be contiguous, so that each claim thus associated may in some way be benefited.2

(2) There must be a community of interest in each claim. This interest need not be of a strictly legal nature. Thus, it has been held, that though the names of three persons claiming to hold three mines in common did not appear in the location notice of each mine, but each mine was located in the name of one of such persons, and the legal title to each was therefore in the respective locator, all the locations having been made under an oral agreement that they should be located for the common benefit, each locator had such an equitable interest in the others as to make the work done on one mine for the development of the three satisfy the mining laws, if sufficient in quantity and value; but where

3

'Jackson v. Roby, 109 U. S. 440, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301. See, also, De Noon v. Morrison, 83 Cal. 163, 23 Pac. 374; McNeil v. Pace, 3 L. D. 267; Nicholas v. Becker, 11 L. D. 8; Dolles v. Hamberg Cons. M. Co., 23 L. D. 267; Axiom M. Co. v. White, 10 S. Dak. 198, 72 N. W. 462; Yreka M. and M. Co. v. Knight, 133 Cal. 544, 65 Pac. 1091.

2 Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U. S. 350, 353, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 428; Mt. Diablo M. and M. Co. v. Callison, 5 Saw. 439, Fed. Cas. No. 9886; Royston v. Miller, 76 Fed. 50; Gird v. California Oil Co., 60 Fed. 531; Copper Glance Lode, 29 L. D. 542.

Eberle v. Carmichael, 8 N. Mex. 169, 42 Pac. 95.

a number of persons located fifteen hundred feet upon a lode, dividing the same into three parcels held in severalty, work done upon one of the parcels will not inure to the benefit of the others. There was a severance of the community of interest, and each parcel constitutes a separate claim.

(3) The aggregate amount of the expenditure of money or labor on one claim must equal in value that which would be required on all the claims if they were separate or independent.2

The same rule is recognized and followed by the land department in estimating value of the expenditures for patent purposes in cases of group applications."

(4) The work performed or improvements made must manifestly tend to the development of all the claims in the group. The burden of proof is on the owner to show that the work done or improvement made does, as a matter of fact, tend to the development of the property as a whole, and that such work is a part of the general scheme of improvement.5

Such is the rule applied where work is done outside of the claims for the benefit of an entire group.

1Zeckendorf v. Hutchinson, 1 N. Mex. 476.

Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U. S. 350, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 428; Eberle v. Carmichael, 8 N. Mex. 169, 42 Pac. 95; Axiom M. Co. v. White, 10 S. Dak. 198, 72 N. W. 462; Copper Glance Lode, 29 L. D. 542; Golden and Cord Mining Claims, 31 L. D. 178, 181; Sweeney v. Northern Pac. R. R., 20 L. D. 394; Good Return M. Co., 4 L. D. 221; In re Kinkaid, 5 L. D. 25.

McCormick v. Baldwin, 104 Cal. 227, 37 Pac. 903; Jackson v. Roby, 109 U. S. 440, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301; In re Folsom, 16 Copp's L. O. 279; Axiom M. Co. v. White, 10 S. Dak. 198, 72 N. W. 462; Copper Glance Lode, 29 L. D. 542.

Dolles v. Hamberg Cons. M. Co., 23 L. D. 267; Copper Glance Lode, 29 L. D. 542.

Justice M. Co. v. Barclay, 82 Fed. 554, 560; Sherlock v. Leighton, 9 Wyo. 297, 63 Pac. 580; Hall v. Kearny, 18 Colo. 505, 33 Pac. 373.

Lindley on M.-74

As to the nature and character of the work required to be performed, what we have said in a preceding section with reference to single locations applies with equal force to group claims. The quality required in both instances is the same, but the quantity in the case of groups depends upon the number of claims sought to be represented by means of a common system of development.

As to whether work done upon one claim for the benefit of a group does so benefit all the claims is a question of fact.1

The land department has formulated a series of deductions from the adjudicated cases as to work done outside of a group of claims for the common benefit of all the claims which embrace the principles herein discussed. These deductions will be found in the next section.

With regard to work done within one placer claim for the benefit of a group of contiguous claims, it is not easy to formulate rules specifically applicable to that class of locations, and some difficulty is found in applying rules which are peculiar to group lode claims. This embarrassment is encountered in the oil regions of California, where the product is reached by means of bored wells. It may be said that a fully equipped well on one twentyacre tract has a tendency to develop many others adjoining, that is, the oil brought to the surface from one tract is supplied, to some extent at least, from those immediately adjoining, but it is impossible to define the limit within which such a rule might be operative. In a report recently submitted to the lower house of congress by the committee on mines and mining, it was said that the land department was of the opinion that the annual labor upon this class of claims must be done

1 Yreka M. and M. Co. v. Knight, 133 Cal. 544, 65 Pac. 1091.

upon each location. To obviate this a bill was introduced, and is now pending in congress, which provides as follows:

66

"That where oil lands are located under the provisions of title thirty-two, chapter six, Revised Stat"utes of the United States, as placer mining claims, the "annual assessment labor upon such claims may be "done upon any one of a group of claims lying contig"uous and owned by the same person or corporation, "not exceeding five claims in all; provided, that said "labor will tend to the development or to determine "the oil-bearing character of such contiguous claims."

? 631. Work done outside of the boundaries of a claim or group of claims.-By an act passed February 11, 1875, commonly known as the "tunnel amend"ment," section twenty-three hundred and twentyfour of the Revised Statutes was amended,

"So that where a person or company has, or may run, a tunnel for the purpose of developing a lode or "lodes owned by said person or company, the money "so expended in said tunnel shall be taken and consid"ered as expended on said lode or lodes, whether

located prior to or since the passage of said act, and "such person or company shall not be required to "perform work on the surface of said lode or lodes in "order to hold the same as required by said act."

This act did not affect the character of other work to be done or improvements to be made according to law as it stood before, except as it gave special value to working by tunnel. The land department held, prior to the passage of this amendment, that development by means of a tunnel satisfied the law, although a contrary rule had been previously announced by Commissioner Drummond.*

118 Stats. at Large, p. 315.

'Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U. S. 350, 355, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 428. * In re Coleman, 1 Copp's L. O. 34.

Copp's Min. Dec. 136, 142.

A tunnel-site located under section twenty-three hundred and twenty-three of the Revised Statutes may be utilized for development purposes. One may lose the right to the tunnel-site (as a means of discovery) by failure to prosecute the work with reasonable diligence. Yet the work thereon may be credited on assessment work on claims which are in fact benefited by it,1 the prerequisite conditions of contiguity and community of interest being present.

The rule is well settled that work done outside of a claim or group of claims, if done for the purpose and as a means of prospecting or developing the claim, as in the case of tunnels, drifts, etc., is as available for holding the claim or claims as if done within the boundaries. One general system may be formed, well adapted and intended to work several contiguous claims or lodes, and when such is the case, work in furtherance of the system, whether done within or without the claim or claims, is work on the claims intended to be developed.2 Work done outside of the claim upon another patent

1 Fissure M. Co. v. Old Susan M. Co., 22 Utah, 438, 63 Pac. 587. 'Mt. Diablo M. and M. Co. v. Callison, 5 Saw. 439, 457, Fed. Cas. No. 9886; Jupiter M. Co. v. Bodie Cons. M. Co., 7 Saw. 96, 116, 11 Fed. 666; Jackson v. Roby, 109 U. S. 440, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301; St. Louis Smelting Co. v. Kemp. 104 U. S. 636; De Noon v. Morrison, 83 Cal. 163, 23 Pac. 374; Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U. S. 350, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 428; Remmington v. Baudit, 6 Mont. 138, 9 Pac. 819; Harrington v. Chambers, 3 Utah, 94, 1 Pac. 362; Packer v. Heaton, 9 Cal. 568; Hall v. Kearny, 18 Colo. 505, 33 Pac. 373; Doherty v. Morris, 17 Colo. 105, 28 Pac. 85; United States v. Iron S. M. Co., 24 Fed. 568; Kramer v. Settle, 1 Idaho, 485; Eberle v. Carmichael, 8 N. Mex. 169, 42 Pac. 94; Book v. Justice M. Co., 58 Fed. 106; English v. Johnson, 17 Cal. 107; Gird v. California Oil Co., 60 Fed. 531, 541; Royston v. Miller, 76 Fed. 50; Taylor v. Parenteau, 23 Colo. 368, 48 Pac. 505; Strasberger v. Beecher, 20 Mont. 143, 49 Pac. 740; Justice M. Co. v. Barclay, 82 Fed. 554, 561; Kopenstein v. Hays, 20 Utah, 45, 57 Pac. 712; Power v. Sla, 24 Mont. 243, 61 Pac. 468; Sherlock v. Leighton, 9 Wyo. 297, 63 Pac. 580; Kirk v. Clark, 17 L. D. 190; Emily Lode, 6 L. D. 220; Zephyr Lode Claim, 30 L. D. 510; Copper Glance Lode, 29 L. D. 542.