v. Toy Long, 4 Sawy. 28; 1 M. R. 497, placers were referred to incidentally as subject to the labor law. In Jackson v. Roby, 109 U. S. 440, without argument, the same dictum was expressed. Later, in Carney v. Arizona Co. 65 Cal. 40, the point was definitely made as to whether such labor was required on placers, and the Supreme Court of California, basing their opinion on the force of the general terms of § 2329a section enacted two years prior to the annual labor section-sustain the affirmative of the proposition. In Sweet v. Webber, 7 Colo. 443, the precedents thus established were followed without reference to the original statute.-Morgan v. Tillotson, 15 P 88.

A single record of a placer claim, whether of 20 acres by one person or 160 acres by eight persons, is a full claim and requires $100 annual expenditure to protect it and $500 to patent it. In other words a 20 acre claim requires as much annual labor and patent expenditures as a 160 acre claim.

The Forms of affidavit, notice and proof of forfeiture given for lode claims will apply with obvious alterations to placers.

Void State Legislation.

In 1879 the Legislature of Colorado passed an Act fixing the amount of annual labor on placers, altering the period during which it was to be performed, and providing for forfeiture of the delinquent co-owners' interest. It was declared in conflict with the Congressional Act in attempting to lessen the annual expenditure in Sweet v. Webber, 7 Colo. 443. It is obviously so in its attempt to interfere with the beginning and end of the annual period. All the other provisions of the section are superfluous where they agree with the Act of Congress and nugatory where they conflict with it.

Special A. C. as to Group Oil Claims.

That where oil lands are located under the provisions of title thirty-two, Chapter six, Revised Statutes 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 contiguous 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. Feb. 12, 1903. 32 St. L. 825.

FORFEITURE TO CO-OWNER.

By Failure to Do Annual Labor-Notice.

R. S. Sec. 2324. *** -Upon the failure of any one of several co-owners to contribute his proportion of the expenditures required hereby, the co-owners who have performed the labor or made the improvements may, at the expiration of the year, give such delinquent co-owner personal notice in writing or notice by publication in the newspaper published nearest the claim, for at least once a week for ninety days, and if at the expiration of ninety days after such notice in writing or by publication such delinquent should fail or refuse to contribute his proportion of the expenditure required by this section, his interest in the claim shall become the property of his co-owners who have made the required expenditures.-Sec. 5, A. C. May 10, 1872. Expenditures in Excess of the Statutory Amount.

Although one co-owner has expended more than enough to hold the claim, the delinquent co-owner, to save forfeiture under the Act of Congress, is only required to pay or tender his proportion of the amount which the law required to be expended upon the claim.

The recovery of his proportion of additional expenditures depends upon other grounds, and is to be enforced only by judicial proceedings, involving the question of mining partnership, or the expressed or implied assent of the co-owner to the expenditure of the additional amount.-5 L. 0. 4; Neuman v. Dreifurst, 9 Colo. 228; McCord v. Oakland Q. Co. 64 Cal. 134; 49 Am. R. 689. The distinction is clearly expressed in Holbrooke v. Harrington, 36 P. 365.

If There Are Three Owners and One Performs all the labor, and gives notice to his co-owners, and one of them pays his proportion and offers to pay one-half and join in the division of the forfeited interest of the third party, we apprehend the second party may refuse such proposition. The forfeiture accrues solely to him who has performed the labor.-31 L. D. 178.

Estoppel.

When a co-owner is delinquent, but the party who has made the expenditure afterwards associates with him in developing the claim, it would probably be considered a waiver of the forfeiture.

Preservation of Proof.

The presumption in law is always against forfeiture, and the party who asserts it must be prepared to make his proof in such case.-Turner v. Sawyer, 150 U. S. 578; 17 M. R. 683.

Amount and Place of Expenditure.

Where a forfeiture notice covered two claims it was held void for not stating the "amount of money spent upon each claim nor the facts which might excuse expenditure upon each claim."-Haynes v. Briscoe, 67 P. 156. The clause in italics we apprehend refers to the possible case of group work where the full amount might have been expended on a single claim.

Choice Between Personal Service and Publication.

If the demand is made by personal service of the forfeiture notice the delinquent must comply within ninety days from date of service. If publication be made the forfeiture is not complete until ninety days after the last publication.

If publication be attempted it can not be turned into personal service by showing that copies of the paper were sent to and received by the party in default.-Haynes v. Briscoe, supra.

Nearest Newspaper.

As to what is the "newspaper published nearest the claim" the construction followed by STEELE, J., in Haynes v. Briscoe, seems to be clearly right; to wit, that it means nearest in a direct line, and not by the usually traveled route.

Length of Publication.

Publication for 13 weeks was held sufficient in Elder v. Horseshoe Co. 87 N. W. 586; aff'd 194 U. S. 248.

Proceedings to Enforce Forfeiture.

In the first instance file the usual affidavit of labor performed, in the form given on p. 112.

FORFEITURE NOTICE. (A)

To Robert H. Tinker:

GEORGETOWN, COLO., January 3, 1908.

You are hereby notified that I have expended during the year 1907 one hundred dollars in labor and improvements upon the Corinne Lode Mining Claim, situate on Republican Mountain in Griffith Mining District, County of Clear Creek, State of Colorado, the location certificate of which is found of record in book 20, page 222, in the office of the recorder of said county, in order to hold said claim under the provisions of section 2324 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, and the amendment thereto approved January 22, 1880, concerning annual labor upon mining claims, being the amount required to hold said lode for the period ending on the 31st day of December, A. D. 1907. And if, within ninety days from the personal service of this notice, or within ninety days after the publication thereof, you fail or refuse to contribute your proportion of such expenditure as a co-owner, which amounts to fifty dollars, your interest in the claim will become the property of the subscriber, your co-owner, who has made the required expenditure, by the terms of said section.

JAMES H. PERSHING.

If the demand contained in this Forfeiture Notice is not complied with, within the prescribed period, it should be recorded after making proof of its service or publication, which can be most readily done by endorsement upon the Notice "A" as follows:

PROOF OF FORFEITURE. (B)

STATE OF COLORADO, County of Clear Creek: ss.

James H. Pershing, being duly sworn, saith that he served the within forfeiture notice upon Robert H. Tinker, the delinquent co-owner therein named, upon the 17th day of March, A. D. 1908, at said county, by delivering to him a true copy of the same and explaining the contents thereof; and that the said Robert H. Tinker wholly failed to comply with the demand contained in said notice or to pay or tender his proportion of said expenditures during the period of ninety days after said date or at any time since hitherto. JAMES H. PERSHING. Sworn and subscribed before me this first day of July, A. D. 1908. John Tomay, [SEAL] Notary Public.

The above form completes the proceeding where the notice has been personally served, but where it has been by publication, discard the form "B" and use the following "C" and "D."

STATE OF COLORADO, County of Clear Creek: ss.

(Copy of Notice "A" Attached.)

Jesse Randall, being duly sworn saith, that he is the publisher of the Georgetown Courier, a weekly newspaper published in said county, and that said Georgetown Courier is the newspaper published nearest to said Corinne Lode Claim, and that the above notice was published in said paper fourteen successive weeks, the first publication appearing in the issue of January 7, 1908, and the last publication in the issue of April 8, 1908.

JESSE RANDALL.

Sworn and subscribed before me this tenth day of April, A. D. 1908. John Tomay, [SEAL] Notary Public.

Upon the publisher's proof (C), the party who has done the work will endorse his affidavit of nonpayment as follows:

STATE OF COLORADO, County of Clear Creek: ss.

James H. Pershing, being duly sworn saith that Robert H. Tinker, the person named in the forfeiture notice attached to the within proof of publication, wholly failed to comply with the demand contained in said notice or to pay or tender his proportion of said expenditures, during