| Show RECENT MINING DECISIONS prepared for the mining review location forfeiture under rev st U S section 23 2324 U S comp st 1901 p ag providing that on failure to perform the required assessment work by the locator of a mining claim the claim shall be open to relocation provided the original locator has not resumed work on the claim after such failure and before relocation a mere failure to comply with the statutory requirement does not terminate the right of the locator but the sole effect of the failure is to throw the land open to location by others and in the absence of such other location the original claimants right to resume work and to hold his claim remains and the estate of the original claimant is not divested until there has been a peaceable entry for the purpose of relocation madison v octave oil co supreme court of california 99 pacific fee for filing under the provisions of rev st 1887 section as amended by act feb 14 1899 laws 1899 p and act march 13 1899 laws 1899 p the fee for recording the affidavit of proof of labor is 50 cents for each claim named in such affidavit empire copper co v henderson county recorder supreme court of idaho 99 pacific development work where a person or IS A vc r r persons holds several adjacent claims work can be done on one claim and be credited on the others hawgood v emery supreme court of south dakota northwestern forfeiture of claim one who entered on a mining claim of another during the year within which the latter might do the required assessment work and who held possession thereof adver adversely Eely to the latter could not object that the latter had not performed the annual labor required by law madison v octave oil co supreme court of california 99 pacific work outside of claim work may be done outside the limits of claims and be credited thereon if beneficial thereto theredo even if there are several claims for which the credit is asked for fop such outside work provided the claims are held in common commo i n haw good v emery supreme court of south dakota northwestern masters liability if an employers foreman or other direct representative knew that the machi nemen in the mine customarily to helped the muckers duckers to clear away the waste when necessary the foremans knowledge would be imputed to the employer in determining the scope of the ma chi employment big five tunnel ore reduction transi co v johnson supreme court of colorado 99 69 pacific 63 |
