Golden Giant Mining Co. v. Hill

Citations

• 27 N.M. 124
• 198 P. 276

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Expenditures made for work performed, labor done, and repairs made upon a stamp mill do not tend to develop the mineral claim, or facilitate the extraction of ore therefrom, and consequently do not constitute any part of the sum required to be expended for annual assessment or improvement work, under section 2324, U. S. Rev. St. (U. S. Comp. St. § 4620). P. 128</p> <p>2. Where one enters into possession of a mineral claim under a contract with a locator, by which the person entering undertakes to do the required assessment work, or do other work which would have been sufficient to constitute assessment work, he will not be heard to assert the forfeiture of the claim for nonperformance of the assessment work, where such nonperformance was the result of his own default, nor will he be permitted to take advantage, at any time, of the information obtained by him on account of such relation. P. 136</p> <p>3. The failure to do the annual assessment work upon a mining claim does not of itself forfeit the claim, a relocation by a third party being essential to work a forfeiture of the original locator’s rights. P. 143</p> <p>ON SECOND MOTION FOR REHEARING.</p> <p>4. Where the trial court determined an issue as to whether there existed a fiduciacy relation between appellant and ap-pellee, and' by agreement of appellee permitted^ appellant to file an amended reply raising such issue, the question having been presented to the Supreme Court in the briefs of both parties, the issue was properly before the Supreme Court. P. 144</p>