Protective Mining Co. v. Forest City Mining Co.

Citations

• 51 Wash. 643
• 99 P. 1033
• 1909 Wash. LEXIS 1247

Syllabus

<p>Mines and Minerals — Mining Claims — Actions—Quieting Title- — Pleading — Complaint — Alleging Discovery or Relocation. A complaint in an action to quiet title to a mining location alleging ownership, possession and adverse claim by defendants is not demurrable because it fails to allege an actual discovery of mineral or a relocation of abandoned ground, such matters being evidentiary.</p> <p>Same — Location—Boundaries—Failure to Erect Monuments. The locator of a mining claim who fails to erect monuments or define the boundaries, assumes the risk of intervening rights of third parties.</p> <p>Same — Notice—Abandoned Ground — Possession-—Color of Title. A location notice on abandoned ground, coupled with possession and ^peaceful entry, is sufficient color of title as against a prior locator, although the notice fails to show that it was a relocation, where the defendants had never made any proper location; since one having no legal rights cannot question the right of one in peaceable possession.</p> <p>Same — -Discovery—Possessory Rights. A discovery, after location of a mining claim and the posting of notices, is sufficient, in the absence of intervening rights, to complete possessory rights under the location.</p> <p>Same — Forfeiture—-Assessment Work — -Evidence. The evidence sufficiently shows a failure to do assessment work, working a forfeiture of the claim, where the locators merely paid in good faith $500 to parties who did no more than go upon the ground and make a pretense of doing the work.</p>