"Placer claim" as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Assembler

Assembler

Silver Member
May 10, 2017
3,300
1,315
Detector(s) used
Whites, Fisher, Garrett, and Falcon.
Primary Interest:
Prospecting
The term "placer claim" as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States, is:
"Ground within defined boundaries which contains mineral in its earth, sand or gravel ; ground that includes valuable deposits not in place, that is, not fixed in rock, but which are in a loose state, and may in most cases be collected by washing or amalgamation without milling".

Most will be aware of this term however there could be some interest about cases that refer to this term. If you happen to come across such cases there are some that will be interested for you to share.
 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!
Upvote 1
Assembler said:
The term "placer claim" as defined by the Supreme Court of the United States, is:
"Ground within defined boundaries which contains mineral in its earth, sand or gravel ; ground that includes valuable deposits not in place, that is, not fixed in rock, but which are in a loose state, and may in most cases be collected by washing or amalgamation without milling".

Most will be aware of this term however there could be some interest about cases that refer to this term. If you happen to come across such cases there are some that will be interested for you to share.
Click to expand...
The key phrase appears to be "without milling".
The State of Oregon:

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries​

Chapter 632​

OREGON MINED LAND RECLAMATION ACT — PLACER MINES, COAL MINES, AND METAL MINES USING ONLY GRAVITY SEPARATION​

"Ore Processing" means milling or other mineral concentration process.
 

Ima gonna need a bigger pan.

gold-nugget-pan-and-hammer.jpg
 

Typical AI anti mining crap.

Don't expect AI to actually understand the subject matter or be able to come to a logical conclusion because all AI lacks context. Applying AI to law has already resulted in lawyers losing their license and plaintiffs losing their cases.

Here is the actual quote from U.S. vs Iron Silver Min Co

By the term 'placer claim,' as here used, is meant ground within defined boundaries which contains mineral in its earth, sand, or gravel; ground that includes valuable deposits not in place, that is, not fixed in rock, but which are in a loose state, and may in most cases be collected by washing or amalgamation without milling. By 'veins or lodes,' as here used, are meant lines or aggregations of metal embedded in quartz or other rock in place.
The terms are found together in the statutes, and both are intended to indicate the presence of metal in rock.
It appears very clearly from the evidence that no lodes or veins were discovered by the excavations of Sawyer in his prospecting work, and that his lode locations were made upon an erroneous opinion, and not upon knowledge that lodes bearing metal were disclosed by them. It is not enough that there may have been some indications by outcroppings on the surface of the existence of lodes or veins of rock in place bearing gold or silver or other metal to justify their designation as 'known' veins or lodes. To meet that designation the lodes or veins must be clearly ascertained, and be of such extent as to render the land more valuable on that account, and justify their exploitation.
The court was not defining the difference between placers and lodes - as they mention that is already set in law by acts of Congress. Nor were they applying the use of milling equipment to define a lode claim. What the court was deciding was whether a lode claim, in this case, with no signs of a lode deposit could still be valid as a lode claim. Lode claims with no mineral in place will only be valid for placer claims as the court clearly explained in their decision.

If a poster offers a court decision without giving a link to the actual court case it's a pretty good bet that one of two things are happening. Either the poster wants to prove a point with a court decision without allowing the viewer to understand the context, like in this thread, the intent is to deceive. Or the poster copy and pasted some internet nonsense that reinforced their opinion without understanding the actual meaning of the court decision.

If you really care about the differences between placer and lode claims read Iron Silver Min Co. It's an important mining case that is required reading for real mining lawyers as well as anyone studying mining law.
www.law.cornell.edu

UNITED STATES v. IRON SILVER MIN. Co. et al.

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
 

Clay Diggins said:
Typical AI anti mining crap.

Don't expect AI to actually understand the subject matter or be able to come to a logical conclusion because all AI lacks context. Applying AI to law has already resulted in lawyers losing their license and plaintiffs losing their cases.

Here is the actual quote from U.S. vs Iron Silver Min Co

By the term 'placer claim,' as here used, is meant ground within defined boundaries which contains mineral in its earth, sand, or gravel; ground that includes valuable deposits not in place, that is, not fixed in rock, but which are in a loose state, and may in most cases be collected by washing or amalgamation without milling. By 'veins or lodes,' as here used, are meant lines or aggregations of metal embedded in quartz or other rock in place.
The terms are found together in the statutes, and both are intended to indicate the presence of metal in rock.
It appears very clearly from the evidence that no lodes or veins were discovered by the excavations of Sawyer in his prospecting work, and that his lode locations were made upon an erroneous opinion, and not upon knowledge that lodes bearing metal were disclosed by them. It is not enough that there may have been some indications by outcroppings on the surface of the existence of lodes or veins of rock in place bearing gold or silver or other metal to justify their designation as 'known' veins or lodes. To meet that designation the lodes or veins must be clearly ascertained, and be of such extent as to render the land more valuable on that account, and justify their exploitation.
The court was not defining the difference between placers and lodes - as they mention that is already set in law by acts of Congress. Nor were they applying the use of milling equipment to define a lode claim. What the court was deciding was whether a lode claim, in this case, with no signs of a lode deposit could still be valid as a lode claim. Lode claims with no mineral in place will only be valid for placer claims as the court clearly explained in their decision.

If a poster offers a court decision without giving a link to the actual court case it's a pretty good bet that one of two things are happening. Either the poster wants to prove a point with a court decision without allowing the viewer to understand the context, like in this thread, the intent is to deceive. Or the poster copy and pasted some internet nonsense that reinforced their opinion without understanding the actual meaning of the court decision.

If you really care about the differences between placer and lode claims read Iron Silver Min Co. It's an important mining case that is required reading for real mining lawyers as well as anyone studying mining law.
www.law.cornell.edu

UNITED STATES v. IRON SILVER MIN. Co. et al.

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
Click to expand...
That the work required to enter the tracts as placer claims had never been performed.

The patents in controversy were issued under §§ 2329 and 2333 of the Revised Statutes.

By the term "placer claim," as here used, is meant ground within defined boundaries which contains mineral in its earth, sand, or gravel; ground that includes valuable deposits not in place -- that is, not fixed in rock -- but which are in a loose state, and may in most cases be collected by washing or amalgamation without milling.

By "veins or lodes," as here used, are meant lines or aggregations of metal embedded in quartz or other rock in place. The terms are found together in the statutes, and both are intended to indicate the presence of metal in rock. Yet a lode may and often does contain more than one vein.
 

What the court was deciding was whether a lode claim, in this case, with no signs of a lode deposit could still be valid as a lode claim. Lode claims with no mineral in place will only be valid for placer claims as the court clearly explained in their decision.
Click to expand...
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/128/673/

The bill for the cancellation of these patents alleges that they were obtained upon false and fraudulent representations.

exacts a faithful compliance with the conditions required. There must be a discovery of the mineral and a sufficient exploration of the ground to show this fact beyond question. The form, also, in which the mineral appears, whether in placers or in veins, lodes or ledges, must be disclosed so far as ascertained.

that the land embraced by them was placer mining ground and contained no veins or lodes of quartz or other rock bearing gold or silver or other metal, and that the patentee had performed the work upon each tract required by law to entitle him to enter it as a placer claim; whereas in fact the land was not placer mining ground, but land containing sundry veins or lodes of quartz or other rock bearing gold, silver, and lead of great value, which was well known to the patentee on his application for the patents, and that the work required to enter the tracts as placer claims had never been performed.
 

whereas in fact the land was not placer mining ground, but land containing sundry veins or lodes of quartz or other rock bearing gold, silver, and lead of great value, which was well known to the patentee on his application for the patents,
Click to expand...
In the metamorphic rocks and igneous rocks minerals are found in cracks, joints. The small cracks are called veins and large cracks are called lodes. Examples are minerals like tin, copper, zinc, lead etc.

Veins form when mineral constituents carried by an aqueous solution within the rock mass are deposited through precipitation.

A great many valuable ore minerals, such as native gold or silver or metal sulphides, are deposited along with gangue minerals, mainly quartz and/or calcite, in a vein structure.

In geology, a lode is a deposit of metalliferous ore that fills or is embedded in a fissure (or crack) in a rock formation.

Lode deposits are distinguished primarily from placer deposits, where the ore has been eroded out from its original depositional environment and redeposited by sedimentary forces.

https://byjus.com/question-answer/what-are-veins-and-lodes/


In geology, a lode is a deposit of metalliferous ore that fills or is embedded in a fracture (or crack) in a rock formation or a vein of ore that is deposited or embedded between layers of rock.[1] The current meaning (ore vein) dates from the 17th century, being an expansion of an earlier sense of a "channel, watercourse" in Late Middle English, which in turn is from the 11th-century meaning of lode as a "course, way".[2]

The generally accepted hydrothermal model of lode deposition posits that metals dissolved in hydrothermal solutions (hot spring fluids) deposit the gold or other metallic minerals inside the fissures in the pre-existing rocks.[3] Lode deposits are distinguished primarily from placer deposits, where the ore has been eroded out from its original depositional environment and redeposited by sedimentation.[4] A third process for ore deposition is as an evaporite.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lode
 

There must be a discovery of the mineral and a sufficient exploration of the ground to show this fact beyond question. The form, also, in which the mineral appears, whether in placers or in veins, lodes or ledges, must be disclosed so far as ascertained.
Click to expand...
Definition of ledge

In mining, a projecting outcrop or vein, commonly of quartz, that is supposed to be mineralized; also, any narrow zone of mineralized rock.

A mass of rock that constitutes a valuable mineral deposit.

Ref: Webster 3rd

https://www.mindat.org/glossary/led...utcrop,constitutes a valuable mineral deposit.
 

If you really care about the differences between placer and lode claims read Iron Silver Min Co. It's an important mining case that is required reading for real mining lawyers as well as anyone studying mining law.
Click to expand...
Failure to recognize the fact that:
There must be a discovery of the mineral and a sufficient exploration of the ground to show this fact beyond question. The form, also, in which the mineral appears, whether in placers or in veins, lodes or ledges, must be disclosed so far as ascertained as well as:

and that the work required to enter the tracts as placer claims had never been performed.

Will void the "Claim". Due diligence is called for here not something else.

How about talking about a different case?
 

Assembler said:
The key phrase appears to be "without milling".
The State of Oregon:

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries​

Chapter 632​

OREGON MINED LAND RECLAMATION ACT — PLACER MINES, COAL MINES, AND METAL MINES USING ONLY GRAVITY SEPARATION​

"Ore Processing" means milling or other mineral concentration process.
Click to expand...
Is it a good idea to send a 'Letter of intent' to DGMI about "Ore Processing" or milling early before all of the work is done to see if any answer is given within 90 days?
 

Assembler said:
Is it a good idea to send a 'Letter of intent' to DGMI about "Ore Processing" or milling early before all of the work is done to see if any answer is given within 90 days?
Click to expand...
Since most people posting on this forum in general do not process the following:
Operations producing less than 5,000 cubic yards of material per year and disturbing less than one acre of land are exempt from these rules but may require a permit from DEQ and other government agencies.

DGMI will most likely not respond to any one that don't meet 5,000 cubic yards or more per year.
 

632-035-0055 Penalties

(1) Any landowner or operator who conducts a surface mining operation, for coal or a metal-bearing ore, without a valid operating permit as required by ORS 517.750 to 517.955 shall be punished, upon conviction, by a fine of not more than $10,000.

(2) Violation of any provision of ORS 517.750 to 517.955, or of any rule or order made pursuant to ORS 517.910 to 517.950, or of any conditions of an operating permit, is punishable, upon conviction, by a fine of not more than $10,000.

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=163818

632-035-0060 Civil Penalty

https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/viewSingleRule.action?ruleVrsnRsn=163823

b) "Notice of Civil Penalty" is a written statement that includes the elements of a notice of violation and also imposes a civil penalty;

(c) "Notice of Violation" is a written warning that includes a short and plain statement of the facts establishing a violation and reference to the statute, rule, order, or permit condition that has been violated;

(d) "Outside a permit condition regarding boundaries, setbacks, buffers, or the placement of surface mining materials" means a violation of any permit condition that establishes or regulates the physical or geographic limits on mining operations. “Surface mining materials” means soil, rock, ore, minerals or overburden. It does not include discharges of water.

(5) Notice of Civil Penalty. If the Department finds that a violation poses an immediate threat to human health, safety, or the environment, or that the violator has not complied with the requirements contained in a previously issued notice of violation, the Department may issue a notice of civil penalty.

(6) Notice of Civil Penalty — Form and Service. A notice of civil penalty must be in a form and shall be served in the manner required by ORS 183.415.
 

russau said:
Something is brewing in our Courts and it stinks !
Click to expand...
Well you are not alone with this opinion as some will feel this way at first. However with an increase of reading of older cases one could see more light shed upon how important "Mining" is to both the well being and the economy as Congress has pointed out in many older acts. There are some cases that can point out this as well.

If the Courts rule in favor of a given Agencies opinion / conclusion. This is simply what the Court has been supplied / noticed with and is not the responsibility of that given Court. There is the practice of "Good Faith" and 'informed consent' that should also play a strong role. This is where everyone can play a part with.
 

Clay Diggins said:
Typical AI anti mining crap.

Don't expect AI to actually understand the subject matter or be able to come to a logical conclusion because all AI lacks context. Applying AI to law has already resulted in lawyers losing their license and plaintiffs losing their cases.

Here is the actual quote from U.S. vs Iron Silver Min Co

By the term 'placer claim,' as here used, is meant ground within defined boundaries which contains mineral in its earth, sand, or gravel; ground that includes valuable deposits not in place, that is, not fixed in rock, but which are in a loose state, and may in most cases be collected by washing or amalgamation without milling. By 'veins or lodes,' as here used, are meant lines or aggregations of metal embedded in quartz or other rock in place.
The terms are found together in the statutes, and both are intended to indicate the presence of metal in rock.
It appears very clearly from the evidence that no lodes or veins were discovered by the excavations of Sawyer in his prospecting work, and that his lode locations were made upon an erroneous opinion, and not upon knowledge that lodes bearing metal were disclosed by them. It is not enough that there may have been some indications by outcroppings on the surface of the existence of lodes or veins of rock in place bearing gold or silver or other metal to justify their designation as 'known' veins or lodes. To meet that designation the lodes or veins must be clearly ascertained, and be of such extent as to render the land more valuable on that account, and justify their exploitation.
The court was not defining the difference between placers and lodes - as they mention that is already set in law by acts of Congress. Nor were they applying the use of milling equipment to define a lode claim. What the court was deciding was whether a lode claim, in this case, with no signs of a lode deposit could still be valid as a lode claim. Lode claims with no mineral in place will only be valid for placer claims as the court clearly explained in their decision.

If a poster offers a court decision without giving a link to the actual court case it's a pretty good bet that one of two things are happening. Either the poster wants to prove a point with a court decision without allowing the viewer to understand the context, like in this thread, the intent is to deceive. Or the poster copy and pasted some internet nonsense that reinforced their opinion without understanding the actual meaning of the court decision.

If you really care about the differences between placer and lode claims read Iron Silver Min Co. It's an important mining case that is required reading for real mining lawyers as well as anyone studying mining law.
www.law.cornell.edu

UNITED STATES v. IRON SILVER MIN. Co. et al.

www.law.cornell.edu www.law.cornell.edu
Click to expand...
Does AI know that it's AI?
 

russau said:
data in / data out ! it's all what the wacoenviromentalist's feed it !
Click to expand...
Some will not admit that there jobs depend on this type of data input.........:BangHead::hello:
 

The Case pointed out as well as most other Cases that refer to the Supreme Court ruling above have not been over turned.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Good day on the dredge

⬅️ Previous Thread

Supreme Court overturns Chevron decision

Next Thread ➡️

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
We Dig Metal Detectors

Latest Discussions

Back
Top