Patent for single claim cannot exceed 160 acres. St. Louis S. Co. v. Kemp, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,239a; Kern Oil Co. v. Crawford, 143 Cal. 298, 76 P. 1111.

Void as to excess of 160 acres for one location. Price v. McIntosh, 1 Alaska, 291; Gohres v. Ill. and J. Gravel M. Co., 67 P. 666; Whiting v. Straup, 95 P. 849; Zimmerman v. Funchion, 161 Fed. 859. See, also, Cent. Dig., vol. 34, title, Mines and Minerals, sec. 35.

Joint location of contiguous claims. Chapman v. Toy Long, 4 Sawy. 28.

S. Smelt. Co. v. Kemp, Fed. Cas. No. 12,239a; see, also, 104 U. S. 651; St. Louis Smelt. Co. v. Ray, Fed. Cas. No. 12,239b.

Discovery necessary on claim. Miller v. Chrisman, 140 Cal. 440.

Work necessary on each claim. Me Donald v. Mont. Wood Co., 14 Mont. 88.

Association may convey to individuals. Miller v. Chrisman, 140 Cal. 440. See Lind

ley on Mines, 2d ed., secs. 447-450; Cent. Dig., vol. 34, title, Mines and Minerals, secs. 23, 27, 33, 42, 129; Fed. Stats. Anntd., vol. 5, pp. 42, 43, cases and notes.

2389. Conformity of placer claims to surveys-Limitation of claim. SEC. 2331. Where placer claims are upon surveyed lands, and conform to legal subdivisions, no further survey or plat shall be required, and all placermining claims located after the tenth day of May, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, shall conform as near as practicable with the United States system of public land surveys, and the rectangular subdivisions of such surveys, and no such location shall include more than twenty acres for each individual claimant; but where placer claims can not be conformed to legal subdivisions, survey and plat shall be made as on unsurveyed lands; and where by the segregation of mineral lands in any legal subdivision a quantity of agricultural land less than forty acres remains, such fractional portion of agricultural land may be entered by any party qualified by law, for homestead or preemption purposes.

See sec. 2434.

The section construed. Durant v. Corbin, 94 Fed. 383; Gird v. Cal. Oil Co., 60 Fed. 531; Mitchell v. Cline, 84 Cal. 415; 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.

No form specified for twenty-acre claim. Price v. McIntosh, 1 Alaska, 300.

Section does not refer to marking boundaries, but to survey or plat. White v. Lee, 78 Cal. 596. See Lindley on Mines, 2d ed., secs. 16, 672, 700; Cent. Dig., vol. 34, title, Mines and Minerals, secs. 23, 27, 33, 42, 129; Fed. Stats. Anntd., vol. 5, pp. 43, 44, cases and notes.

2390. What evidence of possession to establish right to patent-Statute limitations-Lien not impaired by patent.

SEC. 2332. Where such person or association, they and their grantors, have held and worked their claims for a period equal to the time prescribed by the statute of limitations for mining claims of the state or territory where the same may be situated, evidence of such possession and working of the claims for such period shall be sufficient to establish a right to a patent thereto under this chapter, in the absence of any adverse claim; but nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to impair any lien which may have attached in any way whatever to any mining claim or property thereto attached prior to the issuance of a patent.

For state statutes regarding limitations, see Statute construed-Object of sec. 2332. McCowan v. Maclay, 16 Mont. 234; Cleary v. Skiffich, 28 Colo. 364; Altuna Gulch S. M. Co. v. Integral Gulch S. M. Co., 114 Cal. 105; Harris v. Equator M. Co., 8 Fed. 863; Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279; 420 M. Co. v. Bullion M. Co., 9 Nev. 240; Upton v. Santa Rita M. Co., 89 P. 275.

When state statute makes possessory right "real estate," then state statute limitation

v. Uhlig, 26 Utah 1, 198 U. S. 443, 71 P. 1046. Even if possession is sufficient, claimant must be citizen or must have declared intention. Anthony v. Jillson, 83 Cal. 296.

Section 2332 applies to lode claims. Lavagnino v. Uhlig, 198 U. S. 443, 26 Utah, 1, 49 L. Ed. 119. See Lindley on Mines, 2d ed., secs. 699, 704; Fed. Stats. Anntd., vol. 5, pp. 44, 45, cases and notes.

2391. Proceedings for patent for placer claims containing lode.

SEC. 2333. Where the same person, association, or corporation is in possession of a placer claim, and also a vein or lode included within the boundaries thereof, application shall be made for a patent for the placer claim, with the statement that it includes such vein or lode, and in such case a patent shall issue for the placer claim, subject to the provisions of this chapter, including such vein or lode, upon the payment of five dollars per acre for such vein or lode claim and twenty-five feet of surface on each side thereof. The remainder of the placer claim or any placer claim not embracing any vein or lode claim shall be paid for at the rate of two dollars and fifty cents per acre, together with all costs of proceedings; and where a vein or lode, such as is described in section 2320, is known to exist within the boundaries of a placer claim, an application for a patent for such placer claim which does not include an application for the vein or lode claim shall be construed as a conclusive declaration that the claimant of the placer claim has no right of possession of the vein or lode claim; but where the existence of a vein or lode in a placer claim is not known, a patent for the placer claim shall convey all valuable mineral and other deposits within the boundaries thereof.

Cited, Fox v. Meyers, 29 Nev. 183.

Classes of cases included under section 2333. Reynolds v. Iron Silver M. Co., 116 U. S. 696; Noyes v. Clifford, 94 P. 842.

Exception of known lodes from placer patents. Sullivan v. Iron Silver M. Co., 143 U. S. 431; Iron Silver M. Co. v. Sullivan, 16 Fed. 829, 36 L. Ed. 214; Iron Silver M. Co. v. Mike G. & S. M. Co., 143 U. S. 394, 36 L. Ed. 201; Iron Silver M. Co. v. Campbell, 135 U. S. 286, 34 L. Ed. 155; Dahl v. Raunheim, 132 U. S. 260, 33 L. Ed. 324; U. S. v. Iron Silver M. Co., 128 U. S. 673, 32 L. Ed. 571, affirming 24 Fed. 568; Noyes v. Mantle, 127 U. S. 348, 32 L. Ed. 169, affirming Mantle v. Noyes, 5 Mont. 274, 5 P. 856; Iron Silver M. Co., v. Reynolds, 124 U. S. 374, 31 L. Ed. 466; Reynolds v. Iron Silver M. Co., 116 U. S. 687, 29 L. Ed. 774; Butte & B. M. Co. v. Sloan, 16 Mont. 97, 40 P. 217; Brownfield v. Bier, 15 Mont. 403, 39 P. 461; Raunheim v. Dahl, 6 Mont. 167, 9 P. 892; Mont. Copper Co. v. Dahl, 6 Mont. 131, 9 P. 894; Mont. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Migeon, 68 Fed. 811; same ease, 77 Fed. 256; Mt. Rosa M. Co. v. Palmer, 26 Colo. 60; see Clary v. Hazlitt, 67 Cal. 286; Clipper M. Co. v. Eli M. Co., 29 Colo. 377, 68 P. 286; McConaghy v. Doyle, 75 P. 419; Mutchinor v. McCarty, 149 Cal. 603, 87 P. 85; Noyes v. Clifford, 94 P. 842.

Party complying with proceedings for issuance of patent is equitable owner and can maintain quiet title action. Dahl v. Raunheim, 132 U. S. 262.

Width of lode claim as stated in sectionStatute construed. Mt. Rosa M. Co. V. Palmer, 26 Colo. 60.

"Known Lodes" or "veins"-Defined. U. S. v. Iron Silver M. Co., 128 U. S. 673, 32 L. Ed. 571; McConaghy v. Doyle, 75 P. 420; Butte M. Co. v. Sloan, 16 Mont. 97; Iron

Silver M. Co. v. Reynolds, 124 U. S. 374, 31 L. Ed. 466; Migeon v. Mont. Cent. R. R. Co., 77 Fed. 256; see, also, 68 Fed. 811; Casey v. Thieviege, 19 Mont. 341; McConaghy v. Doyle, 75 P. 420; Brownfield v. Bier, 15 Mont. 403, 39 P. 461.

Abandoned lode taking mineral no evidence of "Known Lode" in placer patent. McConaghy v. Doyle, 75 P. 420.

Where no known lode in limits of claim and no contest-Land department need determine only placer character of ground. Cranes Gulch M. Co. v. Sherrer, 134 Cal. 350.

Known lode to be excepted from patentExistence must be known at time of application. Iron Silver M. Co. v. Mike G. and S. M. Co., 143 U. S. 394, 36 L. Ed. 201; U. S. v. Iron S. M. Co., 128 U. S. 673, 32 L. Ed. 571, affirming 24 Fed. 568; Sullivan v. Iron S. M. Co., 143 U. S. 431, 36 L. d 214.

Existence of known lode at date of patent application question of fact. Iron S. M. Co. v. Mike G. and S. M. Co., 143 U. S. 394, 36 L. Ed. 201; Cleary v. Skiffich, 28 Colo. 368. Conflict between lode and placer patents. Iron S. M. Co. v. Campbell, 135 U. S. 286, 34 L. Ed. 155; Cleary v. Skiffich, 28 Colo. 368.

In conflict between subsequent lode and placer claimants burden of proof upon lode claimant Must show "Known Lodes." McConaghy v. Doyle, 75 P. 420; Casey v. Thieviege, 19 Mont. 341.

Trespasser cannot locate lodes on placer claim. Clipper M. Co. v. Eli M. Co., 29 Colo. 377, 194 U. S. 229, 68 P. 286; See Lindley on Mines, 2d ed., secs. 413-416, 704, 781; Cent. Dig., vol. 34, title, Mines and Minerals, sec. 129; Fed. Stats. Anntd., vol. 5, pp. 45-49, cases and notes.

2392. Mining claims extended to saline lands.

All unoccupied public lands of the United States containing salt springs,

or deposits of salt in any form, and chiefly valuable therefor, are hereby declared to be subject to location and purchase under the provisions of the law relating to placer mining claims; provided, that the same person shall not locate or enter more than one claim hereunder. Act approved January 31, 1901, 31 Stat. 745.

For state law relating to the location of saline lands, see secs. 2447 to 2450.

See Cent. Dig., vol. 34, title, Mines and Minerals, sec. 87; Lindley on Mines, 2d ed., secs. 12, 36, 97, 513-516.

2393. Entry of lands chiefly valuable for building stone under the placer mining laws.

Any person authorized to enter lands, under the mining laws of the United States may enter lands that are chiefly valuable for building stone under the provisions of the law in relation to placer mineral claims; provided, that lands reserved for the benefit of the public schools or donated to any state shall not be subject to entry under this act. Act approved August 4, 1892, 27 Stat. 348. See U. P. R. R. Co. v. Soderberg, 188 U. S. 533; Sullivan v. Schultz, 22 Mont. 541; Lindley on Mines, 2d ed., sec. 421; Fed. Stats. Anntd., vol. 5, p. 47, case and notes.

2394. Entry and patenting of lands containing petroleum and other mineral oils under placer mining laws.

Any person authorized to enter lands under the mining laws of the United States may enter and obtain patent to lands containing petroleum or other mineral oils, and chiefly valuable therefor, under the provisions of the laws relating to placer mineral claims; provided, that lands containing such petroleum or other mineral oils which have heretofore been filed upon, claimed, or improved as mineral, but not yet patented, may be held and patented under the provisions of this act the same as if such filing, claim, or improvement were subsequent to the date of the passage hereof. Act approved February 11, 1897, 29 Stat. 526.

Cates v. Producers Oil Co., 96 Fed. 7; Dewey M. Co. v. Miller, 96 Fed. 1; Cal. Oil . Co., v. Miller, 96 Fed. 12; Nev. Sierra Oil Co. v. Miller, 97 Fed. 681; Exploration Co. v. Great Eagle Oil Co., 112 Fed. 14; Lanyon Zinc Co. v. Freeman, 75 P. 995; Weed v. Snook, 144 Cal. 439, 77 P. 1023; Miller v. Chrisman, 140 Cal. 440, 73 P. 1083, 74 P. 444 (affirmed, 197 U. S. 313, 49 L. Ed. 770); Richmond Nat. Gas Co. v. Davenport,

76 N. E. 525; Wolfskill v. Smith, 89 P. 1001; New Eng. & Colinga Oil Co. v. Congdon, 92 P. 180; Merced Oil M. Co. v. Patterson, 96 P. 90; Phillips v. Brill, 95 P. 856; Louisville Gas Co. v. Ky. Heating Co., 111 S. W. 374. See Fed. Stats. Anntd., vol. 5, p. 48, notes and cases; Lindley on Mines, zd ed., sec. 422.

For cases on construction and operation of lease of oil land, see Cent. Dig., vol. 34, title, Mines and Minerals, secs. 200-212.

See Fed. Stats. Anntd., vol. 5, p. 48, notes and cases; Lindley on Mines, 2d ed., sec. 422. 2395. Annual labor may be done on one for not over five contiguous oil claims.

Where oil lands are located under the provisions of title thirty-two, chapter six, Revised Statutes of the United States, as placer mining claims, the annual assessment labor upon such claims may be done upon any one of a group of claims lying contiguous and owned by the same person or corporation, not exceeding five claims in all; provided, that said labor will tend to the development or to determine the oil-bearing character of such contiguous claims, Act approved February 12, 1903, 32 Stat. 825.

ADDITIONAL SECTIONS OF UNITED STATES REVISED STATUTES

2396. Surveyor-general to appoint surveyors of mining claims-Fixing and sworn statement of charges.

SEC. 2334. The surveyor-general of the United States may appoint in each land district containing mineral lands as many competent surveyors as shall apply for appointment to survey mining claims. The expenses of the survey

of vein or lode claims, and the survey and subdivision of placer claims into smaller quantities than one hundred and sixty acres, together with the cost of publication of notices, shall be paid by the applicants, and they shall be at liberty to obtain the same at the most reasonable rates, and they shall also be at liberty to employ any United States deputy surveyor to make the survey. The commissioner of the general land office shall also have power to establish the maximum charges for surveys and publication of notices under this chapter; and, in case of excessive charges for publication, he may designate any newspaper published in a land district where mines are situated for the publication of mining notices in such district, and fix the rates to be charged by such paper; and to the end that the commissioner may be fully informed on the subject, each applicant shall file with the register a sworn statement of all charges and fees paid by such applicant for publication and surveys, together with all fees and money paid the register and the receiver of the land office, which statement shall be transmitted, with the other papers in the case, to the commissioner of the general land office.

See note under sec. 2377 regarding right of deputy surveyor to make location.
Cited, Fox v. Myers, 29 Nev. 518, 531, 535.

See Lindley on Mines, 2d ed., secs. 659, 693.

2397. Verification of affidavits-Contest and proofs as to character of land.

SEC. 2335. All affidavits required to be made under this chapter may be verified before any officer authorized to administer oaths within the land district where the claims may be situated, and all testimony and proofs may be taken before any such officer, and, when duly certified by the officer taking the same, shall have the same force and effect as if taken before the register and receiver of the land office. In cases of contest as to the mineral or agricultural character of land, the testimony and proofs may be taken as herein provided on personal notice of at least ten days to the opposing party; or if such person cannot be found, then by publication of at least once a week for thirty days in a newspaper, to be designated by the register of the land office as published nearest to the location of such land; and the register shall require proof that such notice has been given.

What officers have authority to verify affidavits under sec. 2335. U. S. v. Manion, 41 Fed. 800.

"Personal notice"-Meaning of the term

as used in the statute. N. P. R. R. Co. v. Cannon, 54 Fed. 252; see Fed. Stats. Anntd., vol. 5, pp. 49, 50, notes and cases; Lindley on Mines, 2d ed., secs. 689, 702.

2398. Where veins intersect-Right of way.

SEC. 2336. Where two or more veins intersect or cross each other, priority of title shall govern, and such prior locations shall be entitled to all ore or mineral contained within the space of intersection; but the subsequent location shall have the right of way through the space of intersection for the purposes of the convenient working of the mine. And where two or more veins unite, the oldest or prior location shall take the vein below the point of union, including all the space of intersection.

The right to ore in common territory of "Cross" or "Intersecting" veins. Wilhelm v. Sylvester, 101 Cal. 358, 35 P. 997; Brown v. Quartz M. Co., 15 Cal. 152, 76 Ám. Dec. 468; Van Zandt v. Argentine M. Co., 8 Fed. 725; Hall v. Equator M. and S. Co., Fed. Cas. No. 5,931; (note-Rule laid down in this ease repudiated, Calhoun G. M. Co. v. Ajax G. M. Co., 27 Colo. 1, 59 P. 607, 50 L. R. A. 209), affirmed, 182 U. S. 505; Branagan v. Dulaney, 8 Colo. 408, 8 P. 669; Lee v. Stahl, 9 Colo. 208, 11 P. 77; Morganson v. Middlesex M. Co., 11 Colo. 176, 17 P. 513; Lee v. Stahl, 13 Colo. 174, 22 P. 436, over

ruled, Calhoun G. M. Co. v. Ajax G. M. Co., 27 Colo. 1, 58 P. 607, 50 L. R. A. 209; Watervale M. Co. v. Leach, 33 P. 418; Atkins v. Hendree, 1 Idaho, 95; Pardee v. Murry, 4 Mont. 234, 2 P. 16.

Intersecting and cross veins definedStatute construed. Wilhelm v. Sylvester, 101 Cal. 358, 35 P. 997; Calhoun G. M. Co. v. Ajax G. M. Co., 27 Colo. 1, 59 P. 607, 50 L. R. A. 209; see, also, 182 U. S. 505.

Section 2336 supplemental to and not in conflict with sec. 2322. Calhoun G. M. Co. v. Ajax G. M. Co., 27 Colo. 1; same case, 182 U. S. 505; Book v. Justice M. Co., 58

Fed. 128; Con. Wyo. G. M. Co. v. Champion M. Co., 63 Fed. 546; Wilhelm v. Sylvester, 101 Cal. 358, 35 P. 997; Watervale M. Co. v. Leach, 33 P. 418; Branagan v. Dulaney, 8 Colo. 428; Lee v. Stahl, 9 Colo. 208; Pardee v. Murry, 4 Mont. 234, 2 P. 16.

"Below the point of union"-Phrase defined-Statute construed. Lee v. Stahl, 13 Colo. 174, 22 P. 436. Rights of junior locator. Pardee V. Murry, 4 Mont. 234, 2 P. 16; Calhoun G. M. Co. v. Ajax G. M. Co., 27 Colo. 1, 59 P. 607; 50 L. R. A. 209; Lee v. Stahl, 9 Colo. 208, 11 P. 77; same case, 13 Colo. 174, 22 P. 436, overruled, 27 Colo. 1, 59 P. 607; Morganson v. Middlesex M. Co., 11 Colo. 176, 17 P. 513.

Size of the vein in first location immaterial. Stinchfield v. Gillis, 96 Cal. 37.

Where three veins unite-Rule for determining priority. Little Josephine M. Co. v. Fullerton, 58 Fed. 521.

'Vein-Sec. 2336 does not apply. Omar v. Soper, 11 Colo. 380, 18 P. 443.

"When two or more veins unite"-Rights of locators-Statute construed. Champion M. Co. v. Con. Wyo. M. Co., 75 Cal. 78, 16 P. 513; see same case, 63 Fed. 540; Colo. Cent. Con. M. Co. v. Turek, 50 Fed. 888; Lee v. Stahl, 13 Colo. 174, 22 P. 436; See Lindley on Mines, 2d ed., secs. 557-560, 614; Cent. Dig., vol. 34, title, Mines and Minerals, secs. 78, 79; Fed. Stats. Anntd., vol. 5, pp. 50, 51, cases and notes.

2399. Patents for nonmineral lands for millsites.

SEC. 2337. Where nonmineral land not contiguous to the vein or lode is used or occupied by the proprietor of such vein or lode for mining or milling purposes, such nonadjacent surface ground may be embraced and included in an application for a patent for such vein or lode, and the same may be patented therewith, subject to the same preliminary requirements as to survey and notice as are applicable to veins or lodes; but no location hereafter made of such nonadjacent land shall exceed five acres, and payment for the same must be made at the same rate as fixed by this chapter for the superficies of the lode. The owner of a quartz mill or reduction works, not owning a mine in connection therewith, may also receive a patent for his millsite, as provided in this section.

For state laws regarding location of millsites, see secs. 2436 to 2439, inclusive.
Cited, Hamburg M. Co. v. Stephenson, 17 Nev. 460.
When may patents to millsites be obtained
-Statute construed. Hartman v. Smith, 7
Mont. 27.

"Mining and milling purposes"-Statute construed. Silver Peak M. Co. v. Valcalda, 79 Fed. 890; Hartman v. Smith, 7 Mont. 27. Entry must be made on nonmineral land

only. Burns v. Clark, 133 Cal. 637; Cleary v. Skiffich, 28 Colo. 367. See Lindley on Mines, 2d ed., secs. 519-524, 708; Cent. Dig., vol. 34, title, Mines and Minerals, sec. 44: Fed. Stats. Anntd., vol. 5, p. 52, notes and

cases.

2400. Conditions may be made by local legislature.

SEC. 2338. As a condition of sale, in the absence of necessary legislation by Congress, the local legislature of any state or territory may provide rules for working mines, involving easements, drainage and other necessary means to their complete development; and those conditions shall be fully expressed in the patent.

See sec. 2422, et seq.

Section applies to rules for working mines only-Does not apply to regulation of navigable waters to carry off debris. Woodruff

v. N. Bloomfield Gravel M. Co., 18 Fed. 753; N. Bloomfield Gravel Co. v. U. S., 88 Fed. 664.

Section has no reference to discovery tunnels. Calhoun G. M. Co. v. Ajax G. M. Co., 182 U. S. 505, affirming 27 Colo. 1.

This section does not reserve right of way

over patented claim. Amador Queen M. Co. v. De Witt, 73 Cal. 484.

What use of water intended by section. Jacob v. Day, 111 Cal. 577.

See

Congress cannot ignore state constitution in delegating authority to state legislatures. People v. Dist. Court, 11 Colo. 153. Lindley on Mines, 2d. ed., secs. 249-264, 529– 531; Fed. Stats. Anntd., vol. 5, pp. 52, 53, notes and cases.

2401. Vested rights of water-Rights of way for canals.

SEC. 2339. Whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same; and the right of way