Du Prat v. James

Citations

• 65 Cal. 555
• 4 P. 562
• 1884 Cal. LEXIS 628

Syllabus

<p>MmN9 Claim—Re-looation—Pebfobhance op Labob.—The failure of a locator of a mining claim to perform the amount of labor required by the laws of the United States, subjects the claim to re-location, and a peaceable entry in good faith may be made for that purpose, although the claim is occupied by the original locator.</p> <p>Id. — The right of the original locator to perform the required amount of work after such failure, and retain the benefit of his location, is dependent upon the performance of the labor before the re-location.</p> <p>Id.—Personal expenses incurred, and the value of the locator’s time in endeavoring to procure water to operate a mill to crush ore from the mine, cannot be considered as work done on the claim.</p> <p>Id.—Location—Maekmo on the Gbound.—The court found that stakes and mounds were placed at each of the four corners of the claim, and were prominent and permanent monuments, by which, together with the descriptions in the notices, the claim could be identified, and found also that the location was distinctly marked on the ground so that the boundaries could be readily traced. Held, that the location was valid, and that whether or not the boundaries could be readily traced from the objects placed at the corners, was a question of fact for the trial court to determine.</p>