tures have been made by the claimant or his grantors for the development of the claim, and their situation and location with respect to the same as applied for. (5) This examination should be reported by the deputy under oath to the surveyor-general, and duly corroborated; and a copy of the same should be furnished with the application for patent to the claim, constituting a part thereof, and included in the oath of the applicant. (6) Applications awaiting entry, whether published or not, must be made to conform to these regulations, with respect to examination as to the character of the land. Entries already made will be suspended for such additional proofs as may be deemed necessary in each case. Under sec. 2330. 54. By section 2330, authority is given for the subdivision of forty-acre legal subdivisions into ten-acre lots, which is intended for the greater convenience of miners in segregating their claims both from one another and from intervening agricultural lands. of a placer claim of legal subdivisions, the proof of improvements must show their value to be not less than five hundred dollars and that they were made by the applicant for patent or his grantors. The annual expenditure to the amount of $100, required by section 2324, Revised Statutes, must be made upon placer claims as well as lode claims. 59. By section 2330, it is declared that no location of a placer claim. made after July 9, 1870, shall exceed one hundred and sixty acres for any one person or association of persons, which location shall conform to the United States surveys. Under sec. 2331. 60. Section 2331 provides that all placermining claims located after May 10, 1872, shall conform as nearly as practicable with the the subdivisions of such surveys, and no such United States systems of public surveys and locations shall include more than twenty acres for each individual claimant. 61. The foregoing provisions of law are con55. It is held. therefore, that under a proper 1870, no location of a placer claim can be strued to mean that after the 9th day of July, construction of the law these ten-acre lots in made to exceed one hundred and sixty acres, mining districts should be considered and dealt with, to all intents and purposes, associated together, or whatever the local reguwhatever may be the number of locators aslegal subdivisions, and that an applicant hav-lations of the district may allow; and that ing a legal claim which conforms to one or more of these ten-acre lots, either adjoining or cornering, may make entry thereof, after the usual proceedings, without further survey or plat. 56. In cases of this kind, however, the notice given of the application must be very specific and accurate in description, and as the forty-acre tracts may be subdivided into ten-acre lots, either in the form of squares of ten by ten chains, or if [of] parallelograms five by twenty chains, so long as the lines are parallel and at right angles with the lines of the public surveys, it will be necessary that the notice and application state specifically what ten-acre lots are sought to be patented, in addition to the other data required in the notice. as by an individual can exceed twenty acres, from and after May 10, 1872, no location made and no location made by an association of individuals can exceed one hundred and sixty acres, which location of one hundred and sixty acres cannot be made by a less number than eight bona fide locators; and no local laws or mining regulations can restrict a placer location to less than twenty acres, although the locator is not compelled to take so much. Under sec. 2333. 58. Applicants for patent to a placer claim, who are also in possession of a known vein or lode included therein, must state in their application that the placer includes such vein or lode. The published and posted notices must also include such statement. If veins or lodes lying within a placer location are owned by other parties, the fact should be distinctly stated in the application for patent, and in all the notices. But in all cases whether the lode is claimed or excluded, it must be surveyed and marked upon the plat; the field notes and plat giving the area of the lode claim or claims and the area of the placer separately. It should be remembered that an application which omits to include an application for a known vein or lode therein, must be construed as a conclusive declaration that the applicant has no right of possession to the vein or lode. Where there is no known Inasmuch as the surveyor-general has no lode or vein, the fact must appear by the affiduty to perform in connection with the entry I davit of two or more witnesses. 57. Where the ten-acre subdivision is in the form of a square it may be described, for instance, as the "SE. of the SW. of NW. t," or, if in the form of a parallelogram as aforesaid, it may be described as the "W. of the W. of the SW. 1 of the NW. (or the N. of the S. of the NE. of the SE. 1) of section, township range the case may be; but, in addition to this description of the land, the notice must give all the other data that is required in a mineral application, by which parties may be put on inquiry as to the premises sought to be patented. The proofs submitted with applications for claims of this kind must show clearly the character and the extent of the improvements upon the premises. 2. "By the term 'placer claim,' is meant ground within defined boundaries which contains mineral in its earth, sand or gravel; ground that includes valuable deposits not in place, that is, not fixed in rock but which are in a loose state, and may in most cases be collected by washing or amalgama tion without milling." United States v. Iron Silver M. Co., 128 U. S. 673. (Affirming S. C., 24 Fed. Rep. 568.) 3. Placer mines are those in which min erals are found in the softer material which covers the earth's surface, and not among the rocks beneath. Reynolds v. Iron Silver M. Co., 116 U. S. 687; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 591. 4. Placers "are superficial deposits which -occupy the beds of ancient rivers or valleys," or deposits of valuable mineral, found in par ticles in alluvium or diluvium, or in the beds of streams. Com'r to C. D. Richardson, Sept. 7, 1892. (Citing Moxon v. Wilkinson, 2 Mont. 421; 12 Mor. Min. Rep. 602.) 5. A "mineral lode," as the term is used by miners and the mining acts of Congress, is a zone or belt of mineralized rock lying | within boundaries clearly separating it from the neighboring rock, but does not include a deposit of gold-bearing gravel, although the same may lie between clearly defined strata of rock, and have an average drop of several degrees. Such a deposit of gravel is a placer, as that term is used by miners and in section 2329, United States Revised Statutes. Gregory v. Pershbaker, 73 Cal. 109; 14 Pac. Rep. 401; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 602. 6. The following deposits are enterable under the placer mining laws (for decisions, see MINERALS): Agate, albertite, alkaline earths, alum, amygdaloid bands, asphaltum, auriferous cement, auriferous clay, black lead, borax, carbonate of soda, china clay, fire clay, diamonds, fahlbands, gilsonite, graphite, gypsum, iron, isinglass, kaolin, limestone, stone, marble, mica, nitrate of potash, nitrate of soda, opal, oil, plumbago, phosphates, potash, slate, soda, stockwerke, building stone, sand stone, sulphur and umber. 7. Placer locations, under section 2329, United States Revised Statutes, may include all forms of deposit except quartz veins or other rock in place, and the Land Department has properly held that said section embraces quarries of rock valuable for building purposes. Freezer v. Sweeney, 8 Mont. 508; 21 Pac. Rep. 20. 8. The act of August 4, 1892 (27 Stat. 348), authorizes a placer entry of land chiefly valuable for building stone. Minnekahta Stone Mine, 15 L. D. 256. 9. Land containing valuable deposits of building stone is enterable under the placer contra, Conlin v. Kelly, 12 L. D. 1. laws. H. P. Bennett, Jr., 3 L. D. 116. But see manufacture of lime is enterable under the placer laws. Shepherd v. Bird, 17 L. D. 82 10. Land containing stone suitable for the 11. A placer location of land containing building stone was made in 1889. A pre-emptler the same year. In 1891 deposits of fire tion declaratory statement was filed by a setclay were alleged to have been discovered. Held, that as the placer location was based upon a discovery of building stone, without legal warrant, the subsequent discovery of fire clay would not defeat the agricultural claim. (NOTE.— The real reason for the decision was probably failure to prove existence of valuable deposits of fire clay.) Clark v. Ervin, 17 L. D. 550. 12. Land valuable for building stone enmental practice is excepted from a grant of tered as a placer under then existing Departschool lands to the State. Paris Gibson, 21 opinion is expressed as to whether paint rock is a mineral.) Charles A. Barnes, 7 L. D. 66. 18. Land, to be enterable under the mineral land law, must be shown to contain mineral in such quantities as will render profitable the working of the claim. It must, under the placer law, contain a valuable deposit. Royal K. Placer, 13 L. D. 86. 19. Land, to be subject to entry under the placer law, must be shown to be placer mining land as a present fact. Searle Placer, 11 L. D. 441. 20. A gravel deposit or stratum, even between well-defined walls and having an incline or dip, is not a lode. Gregory v. Pershbaker, 73 Cal. 109; 14 Pac. Rep. 401; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 602. 2. Location. (See LOCATION, p. 77.) 21. Marking of the boundaries on the ground is essential to the validity of a location of a placer mining claim. (NOTE.- In this case the claim was not taken by legal subdivisions.) Sweet v. Webber, 7 Colo. 443; 4 Pac. Rep. 752; 4 West Coast Rep. 116. 22. A placer location, even though taken by legal subdivisions, is required by law to be staked or marked on the ground. Gregory v. Pershbaker, 73 Cal. 109; 14 Pac. Rep. 401; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 602; White v. Lee, 78 Cal. 593; 31 Pac. Rep. 363; Anthony v. Jillson, 83 Cal 296; 23 Pac. Rep. 419. Contra: A placer location taken by legal subdivisions need not be staked. Reins v. Murray, 22 L. D. 409. 23. A location of a placer claim by legal subdivisions is valid, even though the subdivisions located are erroneously described in the location notice, providing the abutting legal subdivisions are correctly given. Duryea v. Boucher, 28 Cal. 569; 67 Cal. 141; 7 Pac. Rep. 421. 24. The staking of every twenty acres of placer claim is not required, the claim being an entirety. Com'r to Aaron F. Parker, April 12, 1893; McDonald v. Montana Wood Co., 35 Pac. Rep. 668. 25. A location of a placer claim by legal subdivisions must be made to conform therewith in the matter of exact description of the land as shown by the township plat. Fractional subdivisions designated by the United States Surveyor General as lots must be so described. Reins v. Murray, 22 L. D. 409. 26. The location of a placer claim, using the names of persons as co-locators who are not intended to have any real interest, but who are to convey their rights after location. (commonly called "dummy" locators), is a fraud on the government. Mitchell v. Cline,.. 84 Cal. 409; 24 Pac. Rep. 164. 27. A placer location made by A., B. and C. in their own names, but for the use of a corporation, may cover that area which the corporation might locate, viz.: twenty acres. Gird v. California Oil Co., 60 Fed. Rep. 531. 28. A discovery of mineral is not a prerequisite to a location of a placer mining claim. Gregory v. Pershbaker, 73 Cal. 109; 14 Pac. Rep. 401; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 602. 29. A location of a placer claim must be based on a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. Reins v. Murray, 22 L. D. 409. 30. Where more than twenty acres is embraced in a placer location, the claim is an entirety, and a discovery upon every twenty acres is not required. McDonald v. Montana Wood Co., 35 Pac. Rep. 668. Contra, Ferrell v. Hoge, 18 L. D. 81; Louise Mining Co., 22 L D. 662; Wingate Placer, 22 L. D. 704. 31. Only twenty acres of placer ground may be embraced in a single location by an individual. Reynolds v. Iron Silver M. Co., 116 U. S. 687; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 591; St. Louis Sm. Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636; 11 Mor. Min Rep. 673. 32. A location of one hundred and sixty acres as a placer claim is an entirety, constituting but a single claim. Com'r to Aaron F. Parker, April 12, 1893; Com'r to John Cowell, June 5, 1893. 33. Every twenty-acre placer location is to be considered as a separate claim notwithstanding the fact that title to several contiguous locations has become vested in one person who makes application therefor, and an expenditure of $500 upon or for the benefit of every location must be shown. Circular (Departmental), Dec. 7, 1882, 9 C. L. O. 163. 34. The size of a placer claim, located prior to the act of July 9, 1870, is regulated by the local law. Subsequent to July 9, 1870, and prior to May 10, 1872, no placer location might. exceed one hundred and sixty acres. From and after May 10, 1872, a location of a placer claim by an individual may not exceed twenty acres, and by an association one hundred and sixty acres. Com'r to H. F. Page, Nov. 21, | placer claim will not be credited on the re1874, 1 C. L. O. 134. 35. An individual owner of a placer claim may not, by making relocation or amended or additional location, increase the area of his claim more than twenty acres, and if the additional area taken exceeds twenty acres, the additional location is void as to the excess. Joseph M. Knapp, 2 L. D. 763. 36. Placer claims may be located jointly by two or more persons. Chapman v. Toy Long, 4 Sawy. 28; 1 Mor. Min. Rep. 497. 37. The owner of a placer mining claim does not forfeit his right thereto, so as to render it subject to relocation, by a failure to perform the annual assessment work during a time when adverse possession is held by another, where he commences action for its recovery within the statutory time. Trevaskis v. Peard, 44 Pac. Rep. 246 (Cal). 3. Expenditure. (See EXPENDITURE, p. 224) 38. Annual expenditures are not required to be made on placer claims. Com'r to R. B. Patton, April 25, 1874, 1 C. L. O. 18. 39. The law requiring $100 to be expended annually in labor or improvements, to hold a mining claim, applies to placer claims. St. Louis Sm. Co. v. Kemp, 104 U. S. 636; 11 Mor. Min. Rep. 673; Jackson v. Roby, 109 U. S. 440; Carney v. Arizona G. M. Co., 65 Cal. 40; 2 Pac. Rep. 734; J. P. Sears, 8 C. L. O. 152; Circular, March 24, 1887, 8 L. D. 505. 40. Where a consolidated placer claim embraces tracts held under different locations, in order to obtain a patent the claimant must show $500 to have been expended upon or for the benefit of every location. (The same rule applies as in case of several contiguous lode claims, and $500 upon the consolidated claim, if for the joint development of all the locations, would be sufficient.) Joseph M. Knapp, 2 L. D. 763; Com'r to Smith Brothers, Sept. 20, 1879, 7 C. L. O. 4. quired statutory expenditure where it appears that said ditch has not been dug, although it might have been so considered had the ditch been afterwards dug. Stork & Heron Placer, 7 L. D. 359. 4. Lode. (See VEINS, p. 19) at the date of application for the placer patent, is carved out of the placer patent. Dahl v. Raunheim, 132 U. S. 260. See 6 Mont. 167; 9 Pac. Rep. 892. 43. A lode within a placer claim, known 44. A patent to a placer, under section 2333, United States Revised Statutes, passes its boundaries. Whether or not the placer no title to a previously located lode within applicant knew of its existence is immaterial. Mantle v. Noyes, 5 Mont. 274; 5 Pac. Rep. 856; S. C., 127 U. S. 348. 45. Section 2333, United States Revised Statutes, provides that lodes within a placer known at date of application for placer patent and not applied for by the placer applicant are excepted from the placer patent. Clary v. Hazlitt, 67 Cal. 286; 7 Pac. Rep. 701. 46. A lode known to exist at date of application for a placer patent, "however insignificant in value," is excepted from the placer application, together with twenty-five feet of surface ground on each side of the middle of the lode. Becker v. Sears, 1 L. D. 577. 47. A vein or lode known to exist at the date of placer application for patent and not included in said application must be excluded from the placer entry. The formal location of a lode claim is not necessary to exclude it from a placer patent, the only requisites being that it was known to exist, and was not included in the placer application. Railroad Lode v. Noyes Placer, 9 L. D. 26. 48. In an action by the patentee of a placer claim to recover possession of a vein or lode within its boundaries, an answer alleging that the vein or lode was known to the patentee to exist at the time of applying for the patent, and was not included in the placer ap 41. Where a placer claimant bases his right to a patent upon possession of the claim during the period prescribed by the Statute of Limitations, he is not required to show an ex-plication, well pleads the fact which, under penditure of $500 upon the claim. J. P. Sears, 8 C. L. O. 152. 42. The cost of a survey preliminary to the location of a ditch for the development of a section 2333, United States Revised Statutes, precludes the patentee from having any right of possession of the vein or lode. Sullivan v. Iron Silver M. Co., 109 U. S. 550. 49. The title to all veins or lodes within a placer claim, known to exist at the date of the placer application for patent and not included in such application, remains in the United States, and the placer patentee or his grantees have no right to dispossess any one in the peaceable possession of such vein or lode, whether the latter have any title or not. Reynolds v. Iron Silver M. Co., 116 U. S. 687; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 591. 50. To be excepted from a placer patent a lode need not have been located at date of the application for such patent. "It is enough that it be known, and in this respect, to come within the intent of the statute, it must either have been known to the applicant for the placer patent or known to the community generally, or else disclosed by workings and obvious to any one making a reasonable and fair inspection of the premises," etc. Iron Silver M. Co. v. Mike & Starr G. & S. M. Co., 143 U. S. 394; Sullivan v. Iron Silver M. Co., 143 U. S. 431; Reynolds v. Iron Silver M. Co., 116 U. S. 687; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 591; Iron Silver M. Co. v. Reynolds, 124 U. S. 374; Noyes v. Mantle, 127 U. S. 348; 15 Mor. Min. Rep. 611. 55. The discovery, subsequent to application for a placer patent, of veins or lodes within the limits of the placer claim does not affect the rights of the placer applicant. United States v. Iron Silver M. Co., 128 U. S. 673. 56. A lode within the limits of a patented placer claim, to be excepted from the placer patent, must have been known to exist at date of the application for the placer patent. Mere belief, not based on any discoveries in the placer tract, or any tracings of a vein or lode adjacent thereto, but on the fact that quite a number of shafts sunk elsewhere in the district had disclosed horizontal deposits of a particular kind of ore, which might be merely parts of a single vein of continuous extension through all that territory, is not knowledge required by section 2333, United States Revised Statutes. Iron Silver M. Co. v. Reynolds, 124 U. S. 374. (S. C., 116 U. S. 687, first trial.) United States v. Iron Silver M. Co., 128 U. S. 673; Sullivan v. Iron Silver M. Co., 143 U. S. 431. 57. A known vein, to be excepted from a placer patent, must possess qualities not required to render a vein subject to location under section 2320, United States Revised Statutes; i. e., it must be known, at date of the application for a placer patent, to be sufficiently valuable to be capable of being profitably worked. Montana Central Ry. Co. v. Migeon, 68 Fed. Rep. 811. 58. A lode, to be excepted from a placer patent, must have been known to be valuable enough to justify exploitation at date of application for the placer patent. Brownfield v. Bier, 15 Mont. 403; 29 Pac. Rep. 461. 59. To be excepted from a placer application for patent, a lode must have been known to be valuable for mineral at date of such application. Largey v. Black, 10 L. D. 156. 60. The existence of lodes, unknown at the date of application for a placer claim, but discovered prior to issuance of patent, does not operate to exclude any surface ground or the lode from the placer patent. War Dance Lode v. Church Placer, 1 L. D. 549. 61. The discovery of lodes within the limits of a placer claim, after application for a placer patent, constitutes no bar to the issuance of the placer patent. J. P. Sears, 8 C. L. O. 152. |