B. TOWN-SITE PATENT. 1. EFFECT AS A CONVEYANCE. 2. MINERALS RESERVED MEANING AND PROOF. 3. MINERAL LANDS EXEMPTED-PROOF OF VALUE. 4. KNOWN LODE CLAIM INCLUDED REMEDY. 5. EFFECT AS AGAINST MINERAL CLAIMANTS. 6. RELIEF AGAINST PRIOR MINERAL ENTRY. 7. GROUND ABANDONED BY MINERAL CLAIMANT-PRESUMPTION. 8. MILL SITE EXCEPTED. 9. SUBSEQUENT DISCOVERY OF MINERAL. 1. EFFECT AS A CONVEYANCE. A patent of a town site is a quitclaim deed from the United States, and when properly recorded is notice to the world of all it contains. McCarthy, In re, 14 L. D. 105, p. 108. 2. MINERALS RESERVED MEANING AND PROOF. This statute reserves from patents for town-site lands only mines of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper which are known to exist at the time of the issue of the patent and mining claims and possessions then lawfully existing. Larned v. Jenkins, 113 Fed. 634, p. 637. See Davis v. Weibbold, 139 U. S. 507, pp. 518, 526, 527. Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S. 658, p. 663. Smith v. Hill, 89 Cal. 122. A patent issued to the town-site of Butte in accordance with the law declaring that no title shall be acquired under the town-site laws to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper, expressly excluded such veins or lodes from the operation of the con veyance. Pacific Slope Lode, In re, 12 L. D. 686, p. 688. The patent to town-site land will convey no title to a known mine, a mining claim, or the possession of a lode in the land patented. Cameron Lode, In re, 13 L. D. 369, p. 370. In order to exempt mining or mineral lands from the operation of a town-site patent it is not sufficient that the lands do in fact contain minerals when the town-site patent takes effect, but it is necessary that they be known to contain minerals of such extent and value as to justify expenditures for the purpose of extracting such minerals, but subsequent discovery does not defeat or impair the title. Harkrader v. Goldstein, 31 L. D. 87, p. 95. See Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U. S. 392. The title to mines of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper, and all mining claims or possessions under existing laws, is not affected by a town-site patent. Townsite of Butte, In re, 3 C. L. O. 131. See Townsite of Central City, In re, 2 C. L. O. 150. This section expressly forbids the acquisition of title to any mine, mining claim, or possession by virtue of such occupation, and a town-site patent issued in pursuance thereof necessarily exempts any such mine or mining claim. Talbott v. King, 6 Mont. 76, p. 101. Mining ground is expressly excluded from the force and effect of a town-site patent by the language of the patent itself and also by this section of the statute. King v. Thomas, 6 Mont. 409, p. 414. Under this and section 2386 R. S., patents for town sites except from the conveyance all mining rights, and patents for vein or lode claims within town-site limits except all town property rights upon the surface. Hawke v. Deffeback, 4 Dak. 20, p. 28. 3. MINERAL LANDS EXEMPTED PROOF OF VALUE. In case of a contest between a mineral claimant and a person holding a town-site patent, in order to except mineral lands from such a patent such lands must be known to contain minerals of such extent and value as to justify expenditures for the purpose of extracting such mineral, and the fact that they had once been valuable, or had subsequently been discovered to be so valuable, does not impair the town-site patent. Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U. S. 392, p. 404. Davis v. Weibbold, 139 U. S. 507, p. 525. Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S. 658, p. 663. Bonner v. Meikle, 82 Fed. 697, p. 704. Lalande v. Townsite of Saltese, 32 L. D. 211, pp. 213, 214, 215. Madison v. Octave Oil Co., 154 Cal. 768, p. 772. If there are no actual known mines capable of being profitably worked so as to make the land more valuable for mining than for agriculture a patent under the preemption act can not be set aside. Plymouth Lode, In re, 12 L. D. 513, p. 515. See Colorado Coal & Iron Co. v. United States, 123 U. S. 307. The effect of a reservation in a town-site patent in the language of the statute is to exclude from the grant all valid mining claims properly located and held prior to the entry of the town site as well as all mines of gold, silver, cinnabar, or copper. Williams, In re, 9 C. L. O. 147. 4. KNOWN LODE CLAIM INCLUDED -REMEDY. Where it appears that a town-site patent has issued for lands embracing a known lode claim duly recorded prior to the town-site entry, judicial proceedings should be instituted for the vacation of the patent so far as it conflicts with the mining claim, and a patent should then issue to the mineral claimant and under such circumstances the department may order a hearing to ascertain whether the grounds embraced in the mineral claim were known to be valuable for minerals at the date of or prior to the town-site entry. Cameron Lode, In re, 13 L. D. 369, p. 371. See Plymouth Lode, In re, 12 L. D. 513. A town-site patent conveys no title to any mine of gold, silver, cinnabar, copper, or any valid mining claim or possession held under existing laws. Townsite of Coalville, In re, 4 C. L. O. 46, p. 47. A town-site patent can not convey to the patentee any surface ground of an existing valid mining location within the town-site limits. Silver Bow Min., etc., Co. v. Clark, 5 Mont. 378, p. 418. See Talbott v. King, 6 Mont. 76, p. 98. 5. EFFECT AS AGAINST MINERAL CLAIMANTS. Town-site lots must be taken burdened with the rights of the mineral claimants and the necessary use thereof, and the quasi title of the lot owner must give way to the title of the mineral claimant for the purpose of mining. Rico Townsite, In re, 1 L. D. 556, pp. 558, 559. No rights possessed by a protestant will be lost or prejudiced by the issuance of a town-site patent subject to the limitations of this section for the full area claimed in the declaratory statement. Lalande v. Townsite of Saltese, 32 L. D. 211, p. 212. When title is acquired to a town-site lot, no right remains to proceed for patent for mining ground under the reservations of law except for mines with the incidents of such surface ground as are actually necessary for operations, and for such mine and possessory rights, together with surface ground not in excess of that recognized by law at the date of the location, as were acquired by the locator before the legal inception of the town-site title. The locator of a placer mining claim having only a placer mining right and to the extent that his interest is interfered with he can maintain a suit to remove a cloud therefrom or to quiet a title to such limited interest, but he can not maintain an action to cancel a patent issued for a town site. Carter v. Thompson, 65 Fed. 329, p. 331. Board of Education v. Mansfield, 17 S. Dak. 72, p. 79. A lode claimant will not be permitted to prove that the lode claimed by him was known to exist prior to the issuance of the town-site patent where it is not shown that the lands covered by the town site were known to be mineral prior to the town-site entry and patent. Laney, In re, 9 L. D. 83, p. 84. 6. RELIEF AGAINST PRIOR MINERAL ENTRY. The patentee of a town-site lot on land containing a prior mineral entry may be given an opportunity to reconvey to the Government the tract included in such mineral entry and thus give the department jurisdiction to pass upon conflicting claim3, but the conveyance must be absolute and accompanied by proof that the land had not been previously conveyed, thus saving the expense and delay of litigation. Pederson Lode v. Black Hawk Townsite, 14 L. D. 186. See Juniata Lode, In re, 13 L. D. 715. Upon proof showing that a town-site entry or patent includes a mine of valuable ore, known to be such at the date of the town-site entry and patent, the department may order a hearing with a view to subsequent judicial proceedings. Plymouth Lode, In re, 12 L. D. 513, p. 514. Pacific Slope Lode, In re, 12 L. D. 686, p. 687. 7. GROUND ABANDONED BY MINERAL CLAIMANT PRESUMPTION. The fact that the locator of a mining claim under the act of 1866 has marked his location boundaries and taken a patent for a part of his location would indicate that no mine was then known to exist upon the part thus abandoned by him, and a townsite patent for such abandoned part is valid. Larned v. Jenkins, 113 Fed. 634, p. 637. 8. MILL SITE EXCEPTED. Under the town-site laws no title can be acquired to a mill site located in connection with a mining claim. Davis v. Weibbold, 139 TT. S. 507, p. 517. See Ďughi v. Harkins, 2 L. D. 721. A mill site properly entered and used in connection with an existing mining claim is by law excepted from a subsequent town-site entry and patent, by force of this section. Hartman v. Smith, 7 Mont. 19, p. 29. A patent for a town site, including a mill site, used in connection with an existing claim is void. Hartman v. Smith, 7 Mont. 19, p. 30. Local officers should not permit a town-site entry pending proceedings on the protest of a mill-site claimant. Esler v. Townsite of Cooke, 4 L. D. 212, p. 215. 9. SUBSEQUENT DISCOVERY OF MINERAL. If land is not known to be mineral in character and no mining locations have been made thereon, a town-site patent can not be invalidated by a subsequent discovery of mineral. Duffy Quartz Mine, In re, 18 L. D. 259, p. 263. The right of a town-lot owner is not to be destroyed by the subsequent discovery of a mineral vein, but the relative rights of the town-lot owner and mineral claimant depend on the priority of acquisition of title. Rico Townsite, In re, 1 L. D. 556, p. 559. See Townsite Clause, In re, 5 L. D. 256, p. 257. Where a town-site claimant has acquired his rights in advance of the discovery of any mine and the initiation of proceedings for the acquisition of title, his rights will be deemed superior to those of the mining claimant, otherwise the title of the mineral claimant is superior. Duffy Quartz Mine, In re, 18 L. D. 259, p. 263. See Davis v. Weibbold, 139 U. S. 507, p. 526. A change in the condition of lands subsequent to patent with reference to valuable mineral deposits can not affect the title as it passed at the time of the sale. Plymouth Lode, In re, 12 L. D. 513, p. 514. Colorado Coal & Iron Co. v. United States, 123 U. S. 307. C. MINERAL PATENT. 1. APPLICATION OBJECTIONS PRIORITY OF RIGHTS. 2. RESERVING TOWN-SITE RIGHTS. 3. PRIORITY OF LOCATION-RELATION-RESERVATION. 4. TOWN-SITE OWNER-NO COMPENSATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS. 1. APPLICATION OBJECTIONS—PRIORITY OF RIGHTS. An application for patent for a lode claim can not be objected to because there is an application for a town site which embraces the ground included in the lode claim application. South Comstock Gold, etc., Min. Co., In re, 2 C. L. O. 146. On application for patent for a mining claim within a town site where it is alleged that such town site included a mine containing valuable ore the existence of which was well known at the time the town-site patent was issued, the department may inquire into the truthfulness of the allegation with a view of recommending a suit to vacate so much of the town-site patent as describes the mineral claim. Plymouth Lode, In re, 12 L. D. 513, p. 514. See Bullock v. Central Pac. R. Co., 11 L. D. 590. Colorado Coal & Iron Co. v. United States, 123 U. S. 307. The existence of prior possessory rights of mineral lands, whether in town sites or otherwise, is a matter properly cognizable by the Land Department when application is made for a patent, unless Congress has referred it to local tribunals. Steel v. Smelting Co., 106 U. S. 447, p. 450. A locator in possession of an existing valid mining claim is not required to file an adverse claim to a subsequent entry of a town site. Silver Bow Min., etc., Co. v. Clark, 5 Mont. 378, p. 417. 2. RESERVING TOWN-SITE RIGHTS. A clause reserving town-site rights should be inserted in a mineral patent where it appears that a portion of a town covers the mineral claim. Hickey, In re, 3 L. D. 85. In issuing patents for mining claims upon veins or lodes, where it appears that the surface ground lies within the limits of a previously located or patented town site, it is proper to insert a reservation of the surface rights, including buildings, structures, and improvements on the surface, thus giving to the mineral claimant all that the law contemplates to be granted by the patent in such cases. Mandeville, In re, Copp's Min. Lands 308. This section gives to town-site occupants surface rights subject to the rights of mineral claimants; and a patent for a mining claim may contain a reservation saving the rights of the town-site occupants. Vizina Consol. Min. Co., In re, 8 C. L. O. 172. 3. PRIORITY OF LOCATION-RELATION-RESERVATIONS. Mining claims legally located are prior to subsequent town-site entries and the patent when issued dates by relation to the time of the location. Silver Bow Min., etc., Co. v. Clark, 5 Mont. 378. Talbott v. King, 6 Mont. 76. Murray v. Buol, In re, 6 Mont. 397. See St. Paul & Pac. R. Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 139 U. S. 1. Where a mining claim existed and was possessed throughout its entire length prior to a town-site location, and the possessory right of the mineral claimant has since been continuously held and maintained in accordance with the mining laws, no reservation in behalf of town-site occupants should be made in the patent for such mining claim. Mandeville, In re, Copp's Min. Lands 328, p. 330. Vizina Consol. Min. Co., In re, 8 C. L. O. 172. 4. TOWN-SITE OWNER- -NO COMPENSATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS. Land within the limits of a town-site entry which was known to be valuable for mineral, and found to be mineral in character, leaves town-site settlers on such lands without legal or equitable rights, and they are not entitled to compensation for their improvements under local statutes. Deffeback v. Hawke, 115 U. S. 392, p. 407.. Hawke, In re, 5 L. D. 131. 5 STAT. 657, MAY 23, 1844. ENTRY BY CORPORATE AUTHORITIES. AN ACT For the relief of the citizens of towns upon the lands of the United States. Be it enacted, etc., That whenever any portion of the surveyed public lands has been or shall be settled upon and occupied as a |