Dibble v. Castle Chief Gold Min. Co.

Citations

• 9 S.D. 618
• 70 N.W. 1055
• 1897 S.D. LEXIS 126

Syllabus

<p>1. A person who makes a relocation of a mining claim, on the ground that the owner, after a due location, incurred a forfeiture by failure to comply with Rev. St. U. S. Sec. 2324, requiring that “not less than $100 worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made during each year,” till the claim is patented, must establish the forfeiture by a preponderance of the evidence.</p> <p>2. Where it appeared that the owner had operated a claim for several consecutive years; that three men undertook to do the necessary annual work during the year in controversy; and that four disinterested witnesses, three of whom had been mine superintendents, and all eng'aged in mining from 20 to 40 years, testified that the work done was worth at least $100, — no failure to do the necessary annual work was shown.</p> <p>3. Tn an action to quiet title to a mining claim, on the ground that defendant had incurred a forfeiture by failure to do the necessary work, the fact that the trial court, by consent of parties, inspected the claim and the work done, can be given no weight by the supreme court, on appeal. Haney, J., dissenting.</p>