Chrisman v. Miller

Citations

• 197 U.S. 313
• 25 S. Ct. 468
• 49 L. Ed. 770
• 1905 U.S. LEXIS 1181

Syllabus

<p>This court does not.review- questions of fact in cases coming from a state • court but accepts the conclusions of the state tribunal as final.</p> <p>Where an attempted mineral location is a failure by reason of a lack of discovery and all rights have been conveyed to a third party who formally relinquishes them, the land is again open to location and the party so relinquishing may locate it and become entitled thereto by subsequent discovery, and otherwise complying with the law, without waiting until the relinquished location lapsed by failure to do the annual work required by statute.</p> <p>In controversies between two mineral claimants the rule as to sufficiency of discovery is more liberal than it is in controversies between a mineral claimant and an agricultural entryman, as in the latter the land is sought to be withdrawn from the category of agricultural lands, while in the. , former the question is merely one of priority.</p> <p>While the statute does not prescribe what is necessary to constitute a discovery under the mining laws of the United States, it is essential that it gives, reasonable evidence of the fact either that there is a vein or lode carrying precious minerals, or if it be claimed as placer ground that it is valuable for such mining; and where there is not enough in what a locator claims to have seen to justify a prudent person in the expenditure of money and labor in exploitation this court will not overthrow a finding of the lower court that there was no discovery.</p>