Myers v. Lloyd

4 Alaska 263
CourtDistrict Court, D. Alaska
DecidedDecember 7, 1910
DocketNo. 1154
StatusPublished

This text of 4 Alaska 263 (Myers v. Lloyd) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Alaska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Myers v. Lloyd, 4 Alaska 263 (D. Alaska 1910).

Opinion

OVERFIELD, District Judge.

Under the pleadings and evidence in this case, there is raised the validity of the Rex lode location; the plaintiff claiming to have made a valid location on the 4th day of October, 1908, and prior to the intervention of any rights of the defendants, included within the boundaries of the Rex lode mining claim. The defendants allege their right to the ground along their tunnel location, within the limits allowed by the statute, by reason of the location of the Butler-Petree tunnel, made on October 7, 1908, or three days after the alleged date of location of the Rex lode mining claim. They would justify their tunnel location at the latter date on the ground that the Rex lode mining claim was not a valid location.

The question raised under the facts and evidence in this case is the proper and required acts to be done by the locator, under the statute, in order to make a valid location of a quartz mining claim in Alaska.

The difficulty, if any, in reaching a just decision in this action is not so much what the law demands of the miner and prospector, ,in making a valid quartz location, as in construing [265]*265and giving proper weight and consideration to the evidence which has been produced during the trial, especially where conflict exists in the same. I take it that the law is generally known by all hard rock miners and prospectors with reference to making a valid quartz location; the conflicts arise in construing the now well-known decisions on the statute in question. To begin with, the statute providing for the location of quartz or lode claims contains what seems to be short and concise terms. Rev. St. 2320 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 1424).

First.- The discovery must be made of a vein or lode of quartz or other rock in place, bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper, or other valuable deposits;

Second. No location of a mining claim shall be made until the discovery of a vein or lode within the limits of the claim located, and no claim located by one person shall extend more than 1,500 feet along the vein or lode, nor more than 300 feet on each side of the middle of the vein at the surface; the width of the claim may, however, be limited, by any mining regulation, to a distance of not less than 25 feet on each side of the middle of the vein on the surface. The end lines of each claim shall be parallel to each other.

However, what constitutes a vein, lode, or ledge in place is meant by this statute, and as generally understood by miners and prospectors, and the differences of opinion on this branch of the subject of a valid location evidently was the occasion of this suit. A vein, lode, or ledge, terms used in this opinion synonymously, means a body of mineral or mineral-bearing rock, within defined boundaries in the general mass of a mountain. To constitute such vein, lode, or ledge, it is not necessary-that it be hard or quartz rock, but any combination of rock, though broken and mixed up with mineral and other things, is sufficient, if in place. It must, however, be mineral-bearing rock, though not necessarily ore or mineral.

The value of the rock within it is not a determining element in the question of discovery The finding of mineral-bearing rock in place constitutes a valid discovery, whether such rock assays high or low. A vein, lode, or ledge which may be located is a seam or fissure in the earth’s crust, filled with quartz or [266]*266some other kind of mineral-bearing rock in place, carrying gold, silver, lead, or other minerals mentioned in the statute. It is not enough to discover detached pieces of quartz or mere bunches of quartz in loose, slide, glacial wash, or débris; it must be found in rock in place.

The vein, however, may be thin or it may be thick, or very thin in some places and very wide in some places; that is, widening from a mere seam to an extensive ore body Thus, a very thin vein may connect two larger deposits of ore, and, though thin, constitutes the vein, lode, or ledge mentioned under the statute; and so a discovery made on such thin part of a vein, lode, or ledge, if it be in place, constitutes a valid discovery. Likewise such vein, lode, or ledge may carry little values in places, and in other places exceedingly high values.

It is necessary only to discover a vein, lode, or ledge in place, whether small or large, rich or poor, at the point of discovery, to entitle the' locator to a valid location of a quartz mining claim on such'vein, lode or ledge. It is the finding of the mineral rock in place, as distinguished from the float rock, that constitutes discovery and warrants the prospector in making a location of a mining claim. The general principle which underlies and which should be applied to the question as to whether a valid discovery has been made is that no miner or prospector would.naturally desire to make a location or spend time or-money in mining for mere pleasure, particularly in -the frozen hills of this district, or unless he has discovered such indications on vacant ground, or has knowledge of mineral within the limits of ground already located, sufficiently near the ground sought to be located, to afford a just and reasonable inference that the expenditure of time and money upon the ground so desired to be located will be likely to develop such a showing of mineral as to justify its location as a mining claim. So a discovery may be said to be made under the statute when a prospector or miner has found rock in place,-or such indications of the presence of ore in rock in place, as would justify a miner in spending his time and money upon it, with a reasonable expectation of finding ore in paying quantities.

The next part of the subject of a valid location we must con[267]*267sider in connection with a vein, lode, or ledge is the phrase “rock in place.” On this term, as applied to the facts and evidence in this case, depends the final decision. “Rock in place,” as used in the state, means the body of the country in a particular locality, which has not been affected by the action of the elements, and which may be said to remain in its natural, original state and condition, as distinguished from the superficial mass lying above it; that is, “rock in place” is solid, fixed rock, as distinguished from surface slide, debris, alluvial, or wash. Yet rock in place does not necessarily mean solid rock, in the sense that it should be free from breaks, seams, or gashes. It rather means the solid substance of which the particular mountain or locality is constituted, the substance forming the mountain, as was said in the case of Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Cheesman, 116 U. S. 529, 6 Sup. Ct. 481, 29 L. Ed. 712:

“Excluding the wash, slide, or debris on the face of the mountain, all things in the mass of the mountain are in place.”

It was also said in another Colorado decision (Leadville Min. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 15 Fed. Cas. p. 98, No. 8,158):

“That a vein, lode, or ledge cannot be said to be in place unless it be incased by ore held within the general mass of fixed and immovable rock. It is not enough to find a vein, lode, or ledge lying on top of a fixed and immovable rock, for that which is on top is not within, and that which is without the rock in place cannot be said to be within it.”

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Iron Silver Mining Co. v. Cheesman
116 U.S. 529 (Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
4 Alaska 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-lloyd-akd-1910.