556 



MINING LAW. 



steps be complied with. The tendency of the 

 decisions of the Federal courts has been to sup- 

 port, as far as possible, locations made in good 

 faith, notwithstanding existing informalities; 

 and hence claims for more than the statutory 

 length upon the lode have been held good to 

 the extent of the number of feet allowed by 

 law, but void as to the remainder ; but the loca- 

 tion of a mining claim upon a lode or vein of 

 ore should always be made lengthwise of the 

 course of the apex, at or near the surface ; 

 otherwise, it will only secure so much of the 

 lode or vein as it actually covers. Thus, where 

 a location is laid crosswise of a lode or vein, so 

 that its greatest length crosses the lode, instead 

 of following the course thereof, it will secure 

 only such surface as lies within it, and its side- 

 lines will become its end-lines for the purposes 

 of defining the rights of the owner. 



The Apex Section and Rights nnder it. The law 

 of 1872 ingrafted upon the old common-law 

 right, which included primarily the surface and 

 everything beneath it, the additional right of 

 following certain viens, under certain condi- 

 tions and limitations, into adjacent territory. 

 This is the so-called right of " extra-lateral 

 pursuit," which is met with only in American 

 jurisprudence. This right carried with it the 

 liability of being intruded upon by an adjoin- 

 ing owner in the exercise of the same right. 

 The old right of discovery, which was original- 

 ly the foundation of the miner's title, is no 

 longer of importance ; for the right to follow 

 a vein outside of the side-lines of the claim 

 depends solely upon the possession of the apex 

 within the surface survey. Thus the original 

 discovery may prove valueless ; but the right 

 of extra-lateral pursuit may make a claim of 

 extreme value. This has several times occurred 

 in the mining-camps of the West. For full ex- 

 planation of this, see " The Emma-Durant 

 Case," " School of Mines Quarterly," vol. viii. 

 The terms "veins," ''lode," and "ledge," and 

 the expressions, ' top of the vein," and " apex 

 of the vein," appear to be synonymous, but 

 they have not yet been judicially settled. A 

 vein or lode, in order to be followed outside of 

 the side-lines of the claim, must be continuous. 

 Continuity is a question of fact, but as yet there 

 is no case that squarely defines the evidence of 

 continuity. In one case, however, it has been 

 held that a vein or lode must be a continuous 

 body of mineralized rock, lying within any 

 well-defined boundaries on the earth's sur- 

 face or under it. Each locator is entitled to 

 follow the dip of the lode or vein to an indefi- 

 nite depth, though it carries him beyond the 

 side-line of his claim, provided that these side- 

 lines substantially correspond with the course 

 of the vein at the surface. A locator working 

 subterraneous! y into the dip of the vein belong- 

 ing to another who is in possession of his loca- 

 tion, is a trespasser ; and, as between two lo- 

 cators, the boundaries of whose respective 

 claims include common territories, priority of 

 location confers the better title, provided a vein 



in place was discovered in the discovery shaft, 

 and provided also that it extended to the ground 

 in controversy. No location can be made upon 

 the middle part of a vein, or otherwise than at 

 the top or apex, which will enable the locator 

 to go beyond his line. While the common law 

 never recognized extra-lateral rights as they 

 exist to-day, it did provide, under certain con- 

 ditions, for the separation of the minerals from 

 the surface under which they lay. 



Annual Labor. The law requires, as above 

 stated, a certain amount of work to be done 

 annually upon each claim, in order to preserve 

 the location. As a rule, the law in this par- 

 ticular has been strictly construed, and finan- 

 cial embarrassment and threats to deter re- 

 sumption of labor, have been held not to be 

 sufficient excuses for non-performance of the 

 work. It has also been held that, where work 

 was done upon one of several adjoining claims 

 held in common, it could only count for the 

 other claims within the meaning of the statute 

 where it actually inured to the benefit of all of 

 them, and was of equal beneficial value to all. 



Phver Claims. In the case of placer claims, 

 the owner of the claim holds everything cov- 

 ered by his patent, except such lodes as were 

 known to exist within the placer claim, prior 

 to the granting of the patent. In this respect, 

 placer claims differ from lode claims. The 

 courts have held that by " known to exist " is 

 meant a vein duly located or recorded and 

 owned by a third party before the placer claim- 

 ant applied for the patent, and that the mere 

 existence of the lode by geological inference, 

 general rumor, or belief, did not serve to ex- 

 empt it from the placer claim. The require- 

 ments of the Federal statute in regard to labor 

 performed have been held to apply to placer 

 claims also. There are no extra-lateral rights in 

 connection with placer claims. 



Bibliography. The literature of mining law is 

 not large. All mining cases of general impor- 

 tance, both English and American, are report- 

 ed in Morrison's "Mining Reports" (Chicago, 

 fourteen volumes). This series contains reports 

 of many cases that in no wise form a part of the 

 general body of the American mining law. 

 Morrison's " Digest of American and English 

 Decisions," found in the reports from the earli- 

 est times to the year 1875 (San Francisco, 1875) 

 is of great value to the practitioner and is the 

 best book for the practical wants of attorneys. 

 For definitions of technical terms, see Rossiter 

 W. Raymond's "Glossary of Mining Terms," in 

 vol. ix of " Transactions of the American Insti- 

 tute of Mining Engineers." Rockwell's " Span- 

 ish and Mexican Mining Law " (New York, 

 1851) is a most learned and valuable treatise, 

 but is now antiquated. Blanchard and Weekes 

 on "Mines, Minerals, and Mining Water Rights" 

 (1887) is valuable, but is no longer up to date. 

 So are also Sickles's " United States Min- 

 ing Laws and Decisions" (1881), and Wade's 

 "American Mining Law" (Denver, 1882). A 

 convenient work is Harris's "Titles to Mines in 



