| OCR Text |
Show FLOATING A PATENT. Aieod,; the important questions at issue in the suit of the Emma Co. vs. the Illinois aod Cincinnati, is the right of a company to change the boundarici-of boundarici-of a patent to a mine from those speci Cod on the face of the patent itself, or in other words, to float a jiatont. The Emma Compauy, as v;& untlerstanc1, G1. iitus tliU privilege uuiitr the miuii ft law, and this claim is prubahly bast 6 upon the old Mexican hiw, from which our own statute is partly uimh lcd. 'Iht Mexican law permitted tho iloating ol grants, both to land and mines, and tobrantt land gran's have hocn cruiio over California for twenty years in search of improved homesteads upon which to anchor, but the privilege; ol floating a grant to a m ne was only per niitted subject to tho restriction that it did not ties pas i upon tho domain ol auother. If tho owners of a mine, the boundaries of which weio prescribed by lawful authority, found upon devel op or tho property that the direction or dip of their lode was different from that supposed at the time of location, they could, upon application in due form to tho same authority, shift their grant, provided that in Joint; so it did not encroach upon other claims, the title or right to which was acquTed at the time when tho application was made for a clearance to ftont. This seems to Ui to bo tho rational law of tho case. |
