be certified by the register to the commissioner of the general land office, and a patent shall issue thereon for the claim, or such portion thereof as the applicant shall appear, from the decision of the court, to rightly possess. If it appears from the decision of the court that several parties are entitled to separate and different portions of the claim, each party may pay for his portion of the claim with the proper fees, and file the certificate and description by the surveyor-general, whereupon the register shall certify the proceedings and judgment-roll to the commissioner of the general land office, as in the preceding case, and patents shall issue to the several parties according to their respective rights. Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the alienation of a title conveyed by a patent for a mining claim to any person whatever. Act of Congress of May 10, 1872, c. 152, sec. 7. If, in any action brought pursuant to section 2326 of the Revised Statutes, title to the ground in controversy shall not be established by either party, the jury shall so find, and judgment shall be entered according to the verdict. In such case costs shall not be allowed to either party, and the claimant shall not proceed in the land office or be entitled to a patent for the ground in controversy until he shall have perfected his title. As amended, March 3, 1881, 21 Stat. L. 505. The adverse claim required by section 2326 of the Revised Statutes may be verified by the oath of any duly authorized agent or attorney in fact of the adverse claimant cognizant of the facts stated; and the adverse claimant, if residing or at the time being beyond the limits of the district wherein the claim is situated, may make oath to the adverse claim before the clerk of any court of record of the United States or the state or territory where the. adverse claimant may then be, or before any notary public of such state or territory. SEC. 2. That applicants for mineral patents, if residing beyond the limits of the district wherein the claim is situated, may make any oath or affidavit required for proof of citizenship before the clerk of any court of record, or before any notary public of any state or territory. As amended, April 26, 1882, 22 Stat. L. 49. 76 P. 1; Keppler v. Becker, 80 P. 334; Hain v. Mattes, 83 P. 127; Harris v. Helena G. M. Co., 29 Nev. 506, 92 P. 1. Cited, Golden Fleece Co. v. Cable Con. M. Co., 12 Nev. 312, 320; South End M. Co. v. Tinney, 22 Nev. 38 (35 P. 89); Fox v. Myers, 29 Nev. 506, 512; Nash v. McNamara, 30 Nev. 114, 132-137; Iowa M. Co. v. Bonanza M. Co., 16 Nev. 68; Rose v. Richmond M. Co., 17 Nev. 25. See next section regarding affidavits of citizenship or of applicant taken out of district. Purpose of suit under sec. 2326-Statute construed. Lavagnino v. Uhlig, 26 Utah, 1, 71 P. 1046, 198 U. S. 443, 49 L. Ed. 1119; Lily M. Co. v. Kellogg, 74 P. 518; Keppler v. Becker, 80 P. 334; Wright v. Town of Hartville, 81 P. 649; Healey v. Rupp, 86 P. 1015; Nash v. McNamara, 30 Nev. 114, 93 P. 405; Bernard v. Parmelee, 92 P. 658; Meyers v. Parmelee, 92 P. 662. Actions to determine rights of adverse claimants. The parties. Nesbitt v. Delamar's Nev. G. M. Co., 24 Nev. 273; Van Valkenburg v. Huff, 1 Nev. 142; Mt. Blanc Con. Gravel M. Co. v. De Bour, 61 Cal. 364; Wolverton v. Nichols, 119 U. S. 485; People v. Dist. Ct., 19 Colo. 347; Back v. Sierra Nev. Con. M. Co., 2 Idaho, 420. Proceedings to be commenced within thirty days. Rader v. Allen, 27 Ore. 344, 41 P. 154; Mars v. Orofino M. Co., 7 S. D. 605, 65 N. W. 19; Steves v. Carson, 42 Fed. 821; Richmond M. Co. v. Rose, 114 U. S. 576, 29 L. Ed. 273; Penn. M. Co. v. Boles, 70 P. 444; Hopkins v. Butte Copper Co., 29 Mont. 390, 74 P. 1081; Woody v. Hinds, Jurisdiction of action. Golden Fleece G. and S. M. Co. v. Cable Con. G. and S. M. Co., 12 Nev. 312; Four Twenty M. Co. v. Bullion M. Co., 9 Nev. 240; Parego v. Dodge, 163 U. S. 160, 41 L. Ed. 113; Doe v. Waterloo M. Co., 43 Fed. 219; Watts v. White, 13 Cal. 321; Bullion Beck and Champion M. Co. v. Eureka Hill M. Co., 5 Utah, 3, 11 P. 515; Hutz v. Gisborn, 1 Utah, 173; NomeSmook Co. v. Simpson, 1 Alaska, 578; Gruwell v. Rocco, 141 Cal. 417, 74 P. 1028; Wilson v. Freeman, 75 P. 84; Mares v. Dillon, 75 P. 969; Wright v. Town of Hartville, 81 P. 649; Kibby v. Higgins, 85 P. 275; Bernard v. Parmelee, 92 P. 658; Meyers v. Parmelee, 92 P. 662; Harris v. Helena G. M. Co., 29 Nev. 506, 92 P. 1. Suit under sec. 2326 does not confer jurisdiction on federal courts regardless of citizenship. Mt. View M. Co. v. McFadden, 180 U. S. 534; Delamar's Nev. G. M. Co. v. Nesbitt, 177 U. S. 523; Shoshone M. Co. v. Sutter, 177 U. S. 505; Blackburn v. Port land G. M. Co., 175 U. S. 579; Beals v. Cone, 188 U. S. 186; bushnell v. Crooke M. Co., 148 U. S. 682; Chambers v. Harrington, 101 U. S. 351; Larned v. Jenkins, 109 Fed. 100; Cal. Oil Co. v. Miner, 97 Fed. 12; contra, see Burke v. Bunker Hill M. Co., 46 Fed. 644; Yellow Aster M. Co. v. Winchell, 95 Fed. 213; Strasburger v. Beecher, 44 Fed. 209. Form of the action not provided by statute-Circumstances and state statutes determined. Perego v. Dodge, 163 U. S. 165; Dahl v. Roumheim, 132 U. S. 260; Tonopah Fraction M. Co. v. Douglas, 123 Fed. 936; Young v. Goldstein, 97 Fed. 303; Allen v. Myers, 1 Alaska, 114; Contra, see Davidson v. Calkins, 92 Fed. 230; Shoshone M. Co. v. Sutter, 87 Fed. 801; Dergan v. Redding, 103 Fed. 914; Doe v. Waterloo M. Co., 43 Fed. 219; Hunter v. Russell, 59 Fed. 967; Grumwell v. Rocca, 114 Cal. 417; Mares v. Dillon, 75 P. 967; Lily M. Co. v. Kellogg, 74 P. 518; Denny v. Mineral Cr. M. Co., 67 P. 724; Wolverton v. Nichols, 5 Mont. 89; Iba v. Cent. Assn., 5 Wyo. 360; Jones v. Pac. Dredging Co., 72 P. 956; Kirby v. Higgins, 85 P. 275; Upton v. Santa Rita M. Co., 89 P. 2.5; Santa Rita v. Upton, Id.; Bernard v. Parmelee, 92 P. 658; Meyers v. Parmelee, 92 P. 662; Friend v. Oggshaw, 3 Wyo. 59. Land office cannot issue receiver's receipt while adverse action pending. Deeney v. Mineral Creek M. Co., 67 P. 724; Fox v. Mackay, 1 Alaska, 329. The complaint or bill in equity-What same must allege. In general. Rose v. Richmond M. Co., 17 Nev. 25, 27 P. 1105; Steel v. Gold Lead M. Co., 18 Nev. 80; Hyman v. Wheeler, 33 Fed. 629; Parley's Park S. M. Co. v. Kerr, 130 U. S. 256, 32 L. Ed. 906, reversing 3 Utah, 235, 2 P. 709; Rough v. Simmons, 65 Cal. 227, 3 P. 804; Rough v. Booth, 3 P. 805; Pralus v. Pac. G. and S. M. Co., 35 Cal. 30; Coleman v. Clements, 23 Cal. 245; Jackson v. Dines, 13 Colo. 90, 21 P. 918; Marshall S. M. Co. v. Kirtley, 12 Colo. 410, 21 P. 492; Hope M. Co. v. Brown, 7 Mont. 550, 19 P. 218; Zeckendorf v. Hutchison, 1 N. M. 476; Ton. Fraction M. Co. v. Douglas, 123 Fed. 936; McMillen v. Ferrum, 74 P. 461; Last Chance M. Co. v. Bunker Hill M. Co., 131 Fed. 579; Mares v. Dillon, 75 P. 963; Woody v. Hinds, 76 P. 1; Keppler v. Becker, 80 P. 334; Hain v. Mattes, 83 P. 127; Helbert v. Tatem, 85 P. 733; Jackson v. McFall, 85 P. 638; Thornton v. Kaufman, 88 P. 796; Smith v. Imperial C. Co.. 89 P. 510, 512; Holmes v. Salamanca G. M. Co., 91 P. 160; Safford v. Fleming, 89 P. 827; Upton v. Santa Rita M. Co., 89 P. 275; see Santa Rita v. Upton, Id.; Phillips v. Smith, 95 P. 91; Ware v. White, 108 S. W. 831. Allegations of citizenship. Thompson v. Spray, 72 Cal. 528, 14 P. 182; Lee Doon v. Tesh, 68 Cal. 43, 6 P. 97, 8 P. 621; McFeters v. Pierson, 15 Colo. 201, 24 P. 1076; Keeler V. Trueman, 15 Colo. 143, 25 P. 313; Thomas v. Chisholm, 13 Colo. 105, 21 P. 1019; Bohanon v. Howe, 2 Idaho, 417, 17 P. 583; Rosenthal v. Ives, 2 Idaho, 244, 12 P. 904; Anthony v. Jillison, 83 Cal. 300; Schultz v. Allyn, 48 P. 960; Buckley v. Fox, 67 P. 659; Stolp v. Treasury M. Co., 38 Wash. 619, 80 P. 817; Matlock v. Stone, 91 S. W. 553; Jackson v. White Cloud M. Co.. 85 P. 639. Complaint must allege ownership and possession. Glacier Mt. S. M. Co. v. Willis, 127 U. S. 471, 32 L. Ed. 172; Souter v. Maguire, 78 Cal. 543, 21 P. 183; McFeters v. Pierson, 15 Colo. 201, 24 P. 1076; Bushnell v. Crooke M. and S. Co., 12 Colo. 247, 21 P. 931; Rader v. Allen, 27 Ore. 344, 41 P. 154; Lavagnino v. Uhlig, 26 Utah, 1, 71 P. 1046, 198 U. S. 443, 49 L. Ed. 1119; Keppler v. Becker, 80 P. 334; Combs v. Virginia Iron, Coal and Coke Co., 106 S. W. 815; Ware v. White, 108 S. W. 831. Complaint must allege that land is mineral land subject to location. Keppler v. Becker, 80 P. 334. Complaint should describe the property embraced within the claim. acier Mt. S. M. Co. v. Willis, 127 U. S. 471, 32 L. Ed. 172; Chapman v. Toy Long, Fed. Cas. No. 2,610; Grady v. Early, 18 Cal. 108; Hoffman v. Beecher, 12 Mont. 489, 31 P. 92; Cronin v. Bear Cr. G. M. Co., 3 Idaho, 619, 32 P. 204; Bullion Beck and Champion M. Co. v. Eureka Hill M. Co., 5 Utah, 3, 11 P. 515; Smith v. Imperial Copper Co., 89 P. 510, 512; Phillips v. Smith, 95 P. 91. Forfeiture or abandonment must be specially alleged. Steel v. Gold Lead M. Co., 18 Nev. 80; Trevaskis v. Peard, 111 Cal. 599, 44 P. 246; Bryan v. McCaig, 10 Colo. 309, 15 P. 413; Campbell v. Taylor, 3 Utah, 325, 3 P. 445. Complaint should show whether lode or placer claim. Yellow Aster M. Co. V. Winchell, 95 Fed. 213; Keppler v. Becker, 80 P. 334. Complaint should show adverse claim filed within sixty days. Cronin v. Bear Cr. G. M. Co., 3 Idaho, 619, 32 P. 204; Hopkins v. Butte Copper Co., 74 P. 1081; Penn. M. Co. v. Boles, 70 P. 444; Lavagnino v. Uhlig, 26 Utah, 1, 71 P. 1046, 198 U. S. 443, 49 L. Ed. 1119; but see Rawlings v. Casey, 73 P. 1090; Thornton v. Kaufman. 88 P. 796; Upton v. Santa Rita M. Co., 89 P. 275. Amended or supplemental complaint. Marshall S. M. Co. v. Kirtley, 12 Colo. 417; Woody v. Hinds, 76 P. 1. The answer, cross complaint or plea. In general. Jones v. Prospect Mt. Tunnel Co., 21 Nev. 339, 31 P. 642; Anthony v. Jillison, 83 Cal. 296, 23 P. 419; Sullivan v. Iron Silver M. Co., 109 U. S. 550, 27 L. Ed. 1028, reversing 16 Fed. 829; O'Keefe v. Cannon, 52 Fed. 898; Pike v. Sutton, 21 Colo. 84, 39 P. 1084; Marshall S. M. Co. v. Kirtley, 12 Colo. 410, 21 P. 492; Perego v. Dodge, 9 Utah, 3, 33 P. 221; Bullion Beck Champion M. Co. v. Eureka Hill M. Co., 5 Utah, 3, 11 P. 515; Iba v. Cent. Assn.. 5 Wyo. 355, 40 P. 527, 42 P. 20; McConaghy v. Doyle, 75 P. 419; Hoban v. Boyer, 85 P. 837; Ware v. White, 108 S. W. 831. Pleading abandonment or forfeiture of laintiff's rights. Steel v. Gold Lead G. and S. M. Co., 18 Nev. 80, 1 P. 448; Bell v. Bed Rock I. and M. Tunnel M. Co., 36 Cal. 214; Pralus v. Pac. G. and S. M. Co., 35 Cal. 30; Dutch Flat Water Co. v. Mooney, 12 Cal. 534; Wulf v. Manuel, 9 Mont. 276, 23 P. 723; Bishop v. Baisley, 28 Ore. 119, 41 P. 936. pendente lite. Safford V. Injunction Fleming, 89 P. 827. The proof. The burden of proof. Jones v. Prospect Mt. Tunnel Co., 21 Nev. 339, 31 P. 642; Golden Fleece G. and S. M. Co. v. Cable Con. G. and S. M. Co., 12 Nev. 312; Quigley v. Gillett, 101 Cal. 462, 35 P. 1040; English v. Johnson, 17 Cal. 107, 76 Am. Dec. 574; Cheesman v. Shreeve, 37 Fed. 36; Bay State S. M. Co. v. Brown, 21 Fed. 167; Harris v. Equator M. and S. o., 8 Fed. 863; Jupiter M. Co. v. Bodie Con. M. Co., 11 Fed. 666; N. Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 1 Fed. 522; Johnson v. Young, 18 Colo. 625, 34 P. 173; Hall v. Kearney, 18 Colo. 505, 33 P. 373; Iron S. M. Co. v. Campbell 17 Colo. 267, 29 P. 513; Bell v. Skillicorn, 6 N. Mex. 399, 28 P. 768; McKinstry v. Clark, 4 Mont. 370, 1 P. 759; Bevis v. Markland, 130 Fed. 226; Heinze v. Boston and M. Con. Copper Co., 26 Mont. 265, 67 P. 1134 affirmed, 77 Pac. 421); Porter v. Tonopah N. Star Co., 133 Fed. 756 (affirmed, 146 Fed. 385); Willett v. Baker, 133 Fed. 937; Moffatt v. Blue River G. Ex. Co., 33 Colo. 142, NO P. 139; Upton v. Santa Rita M. Co., 89 P. 275; Warles v. Davies (Nev.) 158 Fed. 667 (affirmed, 164 Fed. 397); Fredericks v. Klauser, 96 P. 679. Evidence. In general. Lone Star Co. v. West Pt. Co., 5 Cal. 447; N. Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 1 Fed. 522; Chapman v. Toy Long, Fed. Cas. No. 2,610; Rose v. Richmond M. Co., 17 Nev. 25, 27 P. 1105; see same case, 114 U. S. 576, 29 L. Ed. 273; Omar v. Soper. 11 Colo. 380, 18 P. 443; Rockwell v. Graham, 9 Colo. 36, 10 P. 284; Zekendorf V. Hutchison, 1 N. M. 476; McWilliams v. Winslow, 82 P. 538; Treadwell v. Marrs, 3 P. 350; Lozar v. Neill, 96 P. 343. Evidence of discovery on claim-What is sufficient. S. Cross G. and S. M. Co. v. Europa M. Co., 15 Nev. 383; Walsh V. Mueller, 16 Mont. 180, 40 P. 292; Davidson T. Bordeaux, 15 Mont. 245, 38 P. 1075; Ormond v. Granite Mt. M. Co., 11 Mont. 303, 28 P. 289; Upton v. Larkin, 7 Mont. 449, 17 P. 728; Harrington v. Chambers, 3 Utah. 94, 1 P. 362; Sierra Blanca M. Co. v. Winchell, 83 P. 628; Lockhart v. Farrell, 86 P. 1077 (reversed, 210 U. S. 142, 52 L. Ed. 994). Evidence of ownership and possession. Patchen v. Keeley, 19 Nev. 404, 14 P. 347; Golden Fleece G. and S. M. Co. v. Cable Con. G. and S. M. Co., 12 Nev. 312; Pralus v. Jefferson G. and S. M. Co., 34 Cal. 558; Iron S. M. Co. v. Reynolds, 124 U. S. 374, 31 L. Ed. 466; Lakin v. Dolly, 53 Fed. 333; N. Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 1 Fed. 522; Manning v. Strehlow, 11 Colo. 451, 18 P. 625; Lebanon M. Co. v. Con. Rep. M. Co., 6 Colo. 371; Sullivan v. Heuse, 2 Colo. 424; Boardman v. Thompson, 3 Mont. 387; Eberle v. Carmichael, 8 N. M. 169, 42 P. 95; Donahue v. Johnson, 9 Wash. 187, 37 P. 322; Combs v. Virginia Coal, Iron and Coke Co., 106 S. W. 815; Ware v. White, 108 S. W. 831. Evidence of the boundaries-Monuments. Newhill v. Whitfield, 63 Cal. 81; Becker v. Pugh, 17 Colo. 243, 29 P. 173; Stem-Winder M. Co. v. Emma and Last Chance Con. M. Co., 2 Idaho, 421, 21 P. 1040; Metcalf v. Prescott, 10 Mont. 283, 25 P. 1037; Seidler v. Lafare, 4 N. M. 369, 20 P. 789; Seidler v. Maxfield, 4 N. M. 374, 20 P. 794; Sierra Blanca M. Co. v. Winchell, 83 P. 628; Doe v. Waterloo M. Co., 55 Fed. 11. Evidence to show nature of claim, position of vein. Roach v. Gray, 16 Cal. 383; Morgenson v. Middlesex M. and M. Co., 11 Colo. 176, 17 P. 513; Armstrong v. Lower, 6 Colo. 393; see, also, same case, 6 Colo. 581; Driscoll v. Dunwoody, 7 Mont. 394, 16 P. 726; Fitzgerald v. Clark, 17 Mont. 100, 42 P. 273, 30 L. R. A. 803; Ill. S. M. and M. Co. v. Raff, 7 N. M. 336, 34 P. 544; Gilpin v. Sierra Nev. Con. M. Co., 2 Idaho, 662, 23 P. 547, 1014; McWilliams v. Winslow, 82 P. 538; Hoban v. Boyer, 85 P. 837. Evidence of work done on claims. De Noon v. Morrison, 83 Cal. 163, 23 P. 374; Draper v. Douglass, 23 Cal. 347; Haws v. Victoria Copper M. Co., 160 U. S. 303, 40 L. Ed. 436; McGrath v. Bassick, 11 Colo. 528, 19 P. 462; Hirschler v. McKendricks, 16 Mont. 211, 40 P. 290; Kramer v. Settle, 1 Idaho, 485; State v. Dist. Court, 28 Mont. 528, 73 P. 230; Willitt v. Baker, 133 Fed. 937; Bismark Mt. G. M. Co. v. N. Sunbeam G. Co., 95 P. 14. Evidence of abandonment and forfeiture. Mallett v. Uncle Sam G. and S. M. Co., 1 Nev. 188, 90 Am. Dec. 484; Nevebaumer v. Woodman, 89 Cal. 310, 26 P. 900; Carter v. Bacigalupi, 83 Cal. 187, 23 P. 361; Richards v. Dower, 81 Cal. 44, 22 P. 304, 307; Seymour v. Wood, 53 Cal. 303; Bell v. Bedrock Tunnel and M. Co., 36 Cal. 214; Doherty v. Morris, 17 Colo. 105, 28 P. 85; Gear v. Ford, 88 P. 600; Upton v. Santa Rita M. Co., 89 P. 275; Ford v. Campbell, 29 Nev. 578, 92 P. 206; Fredricks V. Klauser, 96 P. 679. Parties must base their action and proof on strength of their title, not weakness of opponent's. Jackson v. Roby, 109 U. S. 445; Gwillim v. Donnellan, 115 U. S. 45; Bay State M. Co. v. Brown, 21 Fed. 167; Conway v. Hart, 129 Cal. 480; Anthony v. Jillson, 83 Cal. 300; Becker v. Pugh, 9 Colo. 589; Murry Hill M. Co. v. Havenor, 24 Utah, 78, 66 P. 762; Weed v. Snook, 144 Lockhart v. Farrell, 86 P. 1077 (reversed, 210 U. S. 142, 52 L. Ed. 994); Slothower v. Hunter, 88 P. 36; Upton v. Santa Rita M. Co., 89 P. 275; Phillips v. Brill, 95 P. 856. Cal. 439, 77 P. 1023; Questions for the jury. Brady v. Husby, 21 Nev. 453, 33 P. 801; Golden Fleece G. and S. M. Co. v. Cable Con. G. and S. M. Co., 12 Nev. 312; Weill v. Lucerne M. Co., 11 Nev. 200; Taylor v. Middleton, 67 Cal. 656, 8 P. 594; Harvey v. Ryan, 42 Cal. 626; N. Noonday M. Co. v. Orient M. Co., 1 Fed. 522; Jupiter M. Co. v. Bodie Con. M. Co., 11 Fed. 666; Gamer v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 371, 20 P. 654; O'Donnell v. Glenn, 8 Mont. 248, 19 P. 302; Flavin v. Mattingly, 8 Mont. 242, 19 P. 384; Russell v. Chumasero, 4 Mont. 309, 7 P. 713; Marshall v. Harney Peak Tin M. M. M. Co., 1 S. D. 350, 47 N. W. 290; Noyes v. Clifford, 94 P. 842. Abandonment-Mixed question of fact and law. Oreamuno v. Uncle Sam G. and S. M. Co., 1 Nev. 215. Instructions for the jury. Overman S. M. Co. v. American M. Co., 7 Nev. 312; Garthe v. Hart, 73 Cal. 541, 15 P. 93; Anderson v. Black, 70 Cal. 226, 11 P. 700; Davis v. Butler, 6 Cal. 510; Hammer v. Garfield M. & M. Co., 130 U. S. 291, 32 L. Ed. 964, affirming, 6 Mont. 53, 8 P. 153; Coleman v. Davis, 13 Colo. 98, 21 P. 1018; Bushnell v. Crooke M. & S. Co., 12 Colo. 247, 21 P. 931; Craig v. Thompson, 10 Colo. 517, 16 P. 24; Bryan v. McCaig, 10 Colo. 309, 15 P. 413; Rush v. French, 1 Ariz. 99, 25 P. 816; Stem Winder M. Co. v. Emma and Last Chance M. Co., 2 Idaho 421, 21 P. 1040; Mattingly v. Lewisohn, 13 Mont. 508, 35 P. 111; Flick v. Gold Hill & L. M. M. Co., 8 Mont. 298, 20 P. 807; Darger v. Le Sieur, 8 Utah, 160, 30 P. 363; Wills v. Blain, 4 N. M. 378, 20 P. 798. Inspection of the premises. Wilson V. Harnette, 75 P. 395; State v. District Court, 29 Mont. 105, 74 P. 132, 76 P. 206. Decision of court or jury. Anthony v. Jillson, 83 Cal. 296, 23 P. 419; Souter v. Maguire, 78 Cal. 543, 21 P. 183; Bennett v. Harkrader, 158 U. S. 441, 39 L. Ed. 1046; Larkin v. Upton, 144 U. S. 19, 36 L. Ed. 330, affirming, 7 Mont. 449, 17 P. 728; Bushnell v. Crooke M. & S. Co., 12 Colo. 247, 21 P. 931; Manning v. Strehlow, 11 Colo. 451, 18 P. 625; McGinnis v. Egbert, 8 Colo. 41, 5 P. 652; Burke v. McDonald, 2 Idaho, 646, 33 P. 49; Rosenthal v. Ives, 2 Idaho, 244; 12 P. 904; McWilliams v. Winslow, 82 P. 538; Upton v. Santa Rita M. Co., 89 P. 275. The judgment. & S. M. Co., 2 Nev. 168, 90 Am. Dec. 526; Bay State Silver M. Co., v. Brown, 21 Fed. 167; Wyendorf v. Frohner, 3 Mont. 282; Mont. Ore Pur. Co. v. Boston & M. Con. M. Co., 27 Mont. 288, 70 P. 1114 (modified, 71 P. 1005); Smith v. Imperial Copper Co., 89 P. 510, 512. Judgment may be given for neither party-Statute construed. Jackson v. Roby, 109 U. S. 440, 27 L. Ed. 990; Perego v. Dodge, 163 U. S. 160, 41 L. Ed. 113; Manning v. Strehlow, 11 Colo, 451, 18 P. 625; Thomas v. Chisholm, 13 Colo. 105, 21 P. 1019; Bay State S. M. Co. v. Brown, 21 Fed. 167; Becker v. Pugh, 17 Colo. 243, 29 P. 173; Bryan v. McCaig, 10 Colo. 309, 15 P. 413; Rosenthal v. Ives, 2 Idaho, 244, 12 P. 904; Connaly v. Hughes, 71 P. 681; Wilson v. Freeman, 75 P. 84; Me Williams v. Winslow, 82 P. 538; Helena G. & I. M. Co., v. Baggaley, 87 P. 455; Phillips v. Brill, 95 P. 856. Appeal from decision of court or juryWhat considered. Quigley v. Gillett, 101 Cal. 462, 35 P. 1040; Champion M. Co. v. Con. Wyo. G. M. Co., 75 Cal. 78, 16 P. 513; Little Josephine M. Co. v. Fullerton, 58 Fed. 521; Iron Silver M. Co. v. Mike G. & S. M. Co., 143 U. S. 394, 36 L. Ed. 201; Jackson v. Dines, 13 Colo. 90, 21 P. 918; Bushnell v. Crooke M. & S. Co., 12 Colo. 247, 21 P. 931. See Lindley on Mines, 2d ed., secs. 717–730, 734-742, 746-766; Cent. Dig. vol. 34, title, Mines and Minerals, secs. 87% to 114; Fed. Stats. Anntd. vol. 5, pp. 35-41, notes and cases. Regarding amendment of 1881, see: Manning v. Strehlow, 11 Colo. 454; McGinnis v. Egbert, 8 Colo. 41; Thomas v. Chisholm, 13 Colo. 107; Bryan v. McCaig, 10 Colo. 309; Becker v. Pugh, 9 Colo. 590; Seymour v. Fisher, 16 Colo. 195; Connally v. Hughes, 71 P. 681; Carnahan v. Conolly, 68 P. 836; Kirk v. Meldrum, 28 Colo. 459; Burke v. Bunker Hill M. Co., 46 Fed. 647; Doe v. Waterloo M. Co., 70 Fed. 462; Back v. Sierra Nev. Con. M. Co., 2 Idaho, 420; Rosenthal v. Ives, 2 Idaho, 265; Burke v. McDonald, 2 Idaho, 339; Lalande v. McDonald, 2 Idaho, 307; Providence G. M. Co. v. Burke, 57 P. 644; Perego v. Dodge, 163 U. S. 160; Mares v. Dillon, 75 P. 963; Tonopah Fraction M. Co., v. Douglas, 123 Fed. 936. See Fed. Stats. Anntd. vol. 5, pp. 36, 37, cases and notes. In general. Bullion M. Co. v. Croesus G. 2385. Description of vein or claims on surveyed and unsurveyed landsMonuments on patented claims control. SEC. 2327. The description of vein or lode claims upon surveyed lands shall designate the location of the claims with reference to the lines of the public survey, but need not conform therewith; but where patents have been or shall be issued for claims upon unsurveyed lands, the surveyors-general, in extending the public survey, shall adjust the same to the boundaries of said patented claims so as in no case to interfere with or change the true location of such claims as they are officially established upon the ground. Where patents have issued for mineral lands, those lands only shall be segregated and shall be deemed to be patented which are bounded by the lines actually marked, defined, and established upon the ground by the monuments of the official survey upon which the patent grant is based, and surveyors-general in executing subsequent patent surveys, whether upon surveyed or unsurveyed lands, shall be governed accordingly. The said monuments shall at all times constitute the highest authority as to what land is patented, and in case of any conflict between the said monuments of such patented claims and the descriptions of said claims in the patents issued therefor the monuments on the ground shall govern, and erroneous or inconsistent descriptions or calls in the patent descriptions shall give way thereto. For authorities and cases concerning this section, see annotations to secs. 2325 and 2326, ante. 2386. Pending applications-Existing rights. SEC. 2328. Applications for patents for mining claims under former laws now pending may be prosecuted to a final decision in the general land office; but in such cases where adverse rights are not affected thereby, patents may issue in pursuance of the provisions of this chapter; and all patents for mining claims upon veins or lodes heretofore issued shall convey all the rights and privileges conferred by this chapter where no adverse rights existed on the tenth day of May, eighteen hundred and seventy-two. See Lindley on Mines, 2d ed., secs. 572-577, 598-604; Fed. Stats. Anntd., vol. 5, pp. 41-42, cases and notes. The statute construed. New Dunderberg M. Co. v. Old, 79 Fed. Rep. 604; Blake v. Butte S. M. Co., 2 Utah, 61; Carson City G. & S. M. Co. v. N. Star M. Co., 73 Fed. 597. 2387. Placers subject to entry similarly to lodes-Conformity of to surveys-Limits of. SEC. 2329. Claims usually called "placers," including all forms of deposit, excepting veins of quartz, or other rock in place, shall be subject to entry and patent, under like circumstances and conditions, and upon similar proceedings, as are provided for vein or lode claims; but where the lands have been previously surveyed by the United States, the entry in its exterior limits shall conform to the legal subdivisions of the public lands. See sec. 2434. "Placer Claim" defined. U. S. v. Iron Silver M. Co., 128 U. S. 679; Gregory v. Pershbaker, 73 Cal. 109, 14 P. 401; Cranes Gulch M. Co. v. Sherrer, 134 Cal. 35, 66 P. 487; Whiting v. Straup, 95 P. 849. Placer location-Rights incident thereto. Mt. Rose M. Co. v. Palmer, 26 Colo. 59; Cranes Gulch M. Co. v. Sherrer, 134 Cal. 350, 66 P. 487. The statute construed-Conditions for entry to lode claims apply to placer claims. Carney v. Ariz. G. M. Co., 65 Cal. 40; White v. Lee, 78 Cal. 595; Freezer v. Sweeney, 8 Mont. 508, 21 P. 20; Worthen v. Sidway, 71 Ark. 386, 79 S. W. 777; Mitchell v. Hutchinson, 142 Cal. 404, 76 P. 55; Kern Oil Co. v. Crawford, 143 Cal. 298, 76 P. 1111. Provisions governing size and extent of lode claims do not apply to placer. Price v. McIntosh, 1 Alaska, 291. See Lindley on Mines, 2d ed., secs. 419-428, 672, 673, 699703; Cent. Dig., vol. 34, title, Mines and Minerals, secs. 23, 27, 33, 42, 129; Fed. Stats. Anntd., vol. 5, p. 42, cases and notes. Location of gold placer claim does not operate as appropriation of water to beneficial uses. Snyder v. Colorado Gold Dredging Co. (C. C. A.), 181 Fed. 62. 2388. Subdivisions of ten-acre tracts; maximum of placer locationsPreemption and homestead claims not impaired. SEC. 2330. Legal subdivisions of forty acres may be subdivided into tenacre tracts; and two or more persons, or associations of persons, having contiguous claims of any size, although such claims may be less than ten acres each, may make joint entry thereof; but no location of a placer claim, made after the ninth day of July, eighteen hundred and seventy, shall exceed one hundred and sixty acres for any one person or association of persons, which location shall conform to the United States surveys; and nothing in this section contained shall defeat or impair any bona fide preemption or homestead claim upon agricultural lands, or authorize the sale of the improvements of any bona fide settler to any purchaser. |