| Show IMPORTANT departmental RULINGS first assistant secretary of the interior lays down the law bakersfield FUEL AND OIL CO decided january 19 1911 placer location oil lands Trans transferee teree A placer location of oil lands for acres made by eight persons and subsequently transferred to a single individual invalid because not preceded by discovery can not be perfected by the transferee upon a subsequent discovery to the full area so located but only as to twenty acres thereof corporation regarded as entity in acquiring public lands A corporation in acquiring title under the public land laws must be regarded as an entity with no greater right than an individual discovery prerequisite to initiation of title titie discovery of mineral is an essential prerequisite to initiation of title under the mining laws discovery subsequent to location doctrine of relation while discovery of mineral subsequent to location of a mining claim is sometimes held by the band land department to relate back to the date of location where there was no precedent discovery the doctrine of relation can not be invoked to the disadvantage of intervening adverse claims nor to permit any one to secure more land by indirect means than may be done directly pierce first assistant secretary the bakersfield fuel and oil company a corporation po ration organized and existing under the laws of the state of california appellant herein applied for a patent to the pitney no 2 oil placer claim containing acres situate in the visalia california land district the commissioner of the general land office held that the company could secure patent to only twenty acres and required it to elect which twenty acres it would take and to cast off the excess acres basing his decision on the yard case 38 L D 59 the company has appealed to the department on the day of june 1899 eight persons attempted to locate sai said d acres of land as a single oil placer mining claim no discovery of oil or other mineral had been made during the month of august 1899 and before discovery all of said eight persons conveyed their so called claim to the appellant company which sunk a well on the claim and actually discovered oil in paying and commercial quantities on the day of september 1900 at a depth of 1207 feet no oil or other mineral was discovered in the claim prior thereto the case has been exhaustively and ably argued by eminent counsel and carefully prepared briefs have been filed the law of the case is within narrow limits ana was clearly announced in the yard case supra that a pacer location of acres made by eight persons and subsequently transferred to a single individual before discovery can not be perfected by the transferee upon a subsequent discovery to over twenty acres while the yard case involved placer locations for gold and other precious minerals it can not be distinguished from the case at bar the placer law was applied to oil lands by act of congress on february 11 1897 29 stat L the acton act of may 10 1872 carried into the revised statutes as section 2331 declares that no placer location shall include more than twenty acres for each individual claimant this is a limitation upon the size of an individual claim the department has frequently held that a corporation in acquiring public lands is a single entity and has no greater right than an individual igo bridge extension placer 38 L D and cases discovery of mineral is the one absolutely necessary prerequisite to the initiation of title to mineral lands on the public domain until discovery is made the so called locators hold their possession r by sufferance and not by right until discovery discover y is made they acquire no interest in the public domain and have nothing to convey put but it is pressed upon our attention that locations are frequently made without discovery of mineral and that upon discovery the fhe claims relate back to date of location it is true that the department often recognizes the validity of such locations by relation but the doctrine of relation has never been invoked to the disadvantage of intervening adverse claimants nor to permit any one to secure more land in an indirect method than he could directly appellant relies upon the case of miller v chrisman cal in which the supreme court of california clearly decided adverse to the doctrine of the yard case while the department has great respect for the decisions of the state courts it does not feel bound to follow them at all times the case of miller v chrisman was carried to the supreme court of the united states and there affirmed U S A careful and critical examination of the opinion of the supreme court of the united states convinces the department that the court did not intend to and did not adopt the doctrine laid down by the supreme court of california there is no suggestion in the opinion that would warrant any such conclusion it turned upon another point that the intervener had not made such a discovery as would entitle him to protection we do not regard it as an authority in the case at bar it is pressed upon our attention that the method pursued by the appellant in its attempt to acquire patent to public oil land has been the common method in use in california for many years and that many patents have been issued under similar circumstances cum stances this is the first time the question has been presented to the department fo for decision whenever a new question is presented it must be decided upon the law and if the interpretation of the law works disadvantageously or inequitably relief should be secured through congress and in III view of the situation existing the depart ment has already called the attention of congress to the facts and recommended remedial legislation in favor of those bona fide locators who have diligently prosecuted their work to fruition the decision is affirmed |
