Show RECENT MINING DECISIONS prepared expressly for the mining review adverse claims the federal statutes providing r for the prose prosecution cuton of adverse claims to mining locations apply only to adverse claims arising out of independent or conflict conflicting ng locations of the thel same ground and not to controversies between co owners claiming under the same location rev st sections 2325 2326 U S comp st 1901 pp ap 1429 1430 allen alien v blanche gold mining co supreme court of colorado pacific 1072 I 1 relocation where plaintiff and his grantor asserted rights to a mining claim as re locators on the theory that the claim had been forfeited for failure to perform the required assessment work they recognized as re locators the prior lo location caton which became forfeited by the relocation golden v murphy supreme court of nevada pacific rights adverse possession of a mining claim would give the possessor all ledges or claims within the claim and the rights to follow them within his side lines extended vertically downward golden v murphy supreme courton court of nevada pacific town site reservation A valid and subsisting mining claim on land covered by a townsite town site patent at the time the patent was issued does not pass nor is the title or right of possession affected thereby under rev st U S section 2392 U S comp st 1901 p 1459 declaring that no title shall be acquired under the foregoing provisions of the chapter to any mine of gold silver cinnabar or copper or to any vald mining claim or possession held under existing laws golden v murphy supreme court of nevada 10 pacific surface soil the right of a to mine underneath the surface is subordinate to the right of the owner to have it supported in its natural position which right is a part of the freehold and the right to mine must be exercised in such a way as not to prevent others from exercising their rights southwest missouri ry co v big three mining co kansas city court of appeals southwestern presumption ownership while the presumption that an owner of the surface of a mining claim owns all minerals beneath it ceases when it is made to appear that some vein found beneath the surface has its apex in a claim belonging to another yet the burden of pi proving oving ownership of such apex vein and its dip and descent to and underneath another claim so as to overcome the presumptive ownership of the surface owner is on oh him who asserts it keely v ophir hill consol mining go co U S circuit court of appeals federal adverse claim the utah statute pro C OREGON R E om C N FIR framed mine timbers in square sets wedges lagging ladder stock and guides rough timbers and railroad d ties I 1 TREATED BY WOOD preservative IF DESIRED p F I 1 COM COMPANY PANY INC POR PORTLAND ANO OREGON manufacturers and wholesalers of oregon fir lumber vides that an action may be brought by any person against another who claims an es f tate or interest in real property adverse to him to determine such adverse claim held that since it is only when a claim of an adverse estate or interest is made that the owner can avail himself of such remedy a locator of a claim in a mining where there may be rights existing in favor of those owning contiguous or neighboring claims cannot compel them in such an action to assert and make proof thereof or be forever barred from claiming or asserting them and hence a judgment in such an action is only conclusive as to the rights of the parties in the lowner ownership ship of discovered veins keely v ophir hill consol mining co U S circuit court of appeals federal joint purchase of claims A lease for I 1 mining claims gave the lessees lessels an option to purchase the property for and by another and separate contract the owner agreed in case of purchase to refund to them of the purchase money by false representations and showing the lease while concealing the fact of the other agreement the lessees lessels induced complainant to become a joint purchaser with them paying for a half interest in the property not haeng hav ng sufficient money the lessees lessels applied to defendant stating the facts and showing him both contracts and he agreed to advance the money necessary to make the payments until the real consideration cf should be paid when he was to secretly receive the subsequent payments made by complainant for this accommodation he was to receive interest and also a third interest in the lessees lessels les sees half of the property the first payments of was made when complainant became suspicious and refused to pay more and through some arrangement with the lessees lessels defendant completed the payments and obtained title to the property held that by intentionally joining with the others in the deception of complainant he became a joint purchaser and assumed the obligations obligation of good faith incident to that fiduciary relationship and that both he and the property in his hands were liable for the amount necessary to make resti restitution tulon for the fraud cunningham v pettigrew U S circuit court of appeals federal |