Validity of lode claim versus Invalid

[CALIdigger]

Validity of lode claims vs invalidity
I want to claim an area for placer that has a current active lode claims. I know you can't claim placer over a lode. My question is where I want to claim burnt two years ago. The original locator had an agent post and file the paperwork for him. He lives across the country and hasn't restaked discovery monuments or corner posts in the 2 years since the fire. Does that invalidate his claim even if he's paying his maintenance fees?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Clay Diggins]

What state is the claim in?

Heavy Pans

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

For some reason I think the OP was looking for a different kind of response..

 

[Reed Lukens]

For some reason I think the OP was looking for a different kind of response..

the answer does depend on what state he's in. Different states, different rules.

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

the answer does depend on what state he's in. Different states, different rules.

Reed, I get that.

 

[mofugly13]

Based on his screen name, hes in CA. In CA, corner stakes are not required to be maintained. I dont think they are required at all. The claim marker monument is required to be maintained. However, I do not believe that any individual has the "authority" to determine that a claim is invalid. I *think* that that authority lies with BLM.

I am curious about this as well. There was a claim near mine, that the owners grossly misstated the claim boundaries on their paperwork that was included with their monument. This claim was also inaccessible because it required you to trespass across private land to get to. The land, however was poorly posted as to what was private, and what was forest service....

By chance, when I was staking my claim nearby, i met the owner of the patented property, developed a relationship, and he allows me access to his property to access my claim. In turn, I clear the road all the way into his camp each year of brush, boulders, deadfalls, etc.

So, that gave ME access to the other claim, but it was not my claim. I think that due to the accessibility factor, the claimants gave up or simply failed to file their maintenance fees or SMW and assessment. However, I waited until BLM changed the status to closed before I placed my own claim there.

What if BLM is years behind in changing a claim's status to closed? If I can see that no claim paperwork has been filed for a claim on time, do I REALLY need to wait until BLM changes the status from active to closed?

 

[Clay Diggins]

Neither California or Nevada require corners or monuments to be maintained.

Since any effort to claim over an existing claim would be governed by state law the junior claimant would lose their overclaim in court if this is in most states. Time, money and the goodwill of fellow miners would wasted for no good end.

In a dispute between claimants the BLM and the federal government are prevented by law from deciding which claimant has the better right. That's why state law and state courts are the only way to settle a mining claim dispute.

Very few states require the maintenance of claim markers or monuments. Of those states that do I doubt the courts would look favorably on any effort to claim jump based on markers alone.

Think for a moment about what it takes to make a valid mining claim. The overclaimer would have to discover a valuable mineral on an existing mining claim before they could make their claim. Prospecting and taking minerals from an existing mineral claim is theft. Theft is a crime in all states. Do you really think a judge would award a mining claim to an admitted thief because the senior claimant didn't fulfill civil law maintenance requirements?

Heavy Pans

 

[Goldwasher]

Neither California or Nevada require corners or monuments to be maintained.

Since any effort to claim over an existing claim would be governed by state law the junior claimant would lose their overclaim in court if this is in most states. Time, money and the goodwill of fellow miners would wasted for no good end.

In a dispute between claimants the BLM and the federal government are prevented by law from deciding which claimant has the better right. That's why state law and state courts are the only way to settle a mining claim dispute.

Very few states require the maintenance of claim markers or monuments. Of those states that do I doubt the courts would look favorably on any effort to claim jump based on markers alone.

Think for a moment about what it takes to make a valid mining claim. The overclaimer would have to discover a valuable mineral on an existing mining claim before they could make their claim. Prospecting and taking minerals from an existing mineral claim is theft. Theft is a crime in all states. Do you really think a judge would award a mining claim to an admitted thief because the senior claimant didn't fulfill civil law maintenance requirements?

Heavy Pans

however you could make a discovery in an open area. Have a lode location notice to look at. That happens to have a terrible map (if at all)

and an even worse description of the claim.. I know of a guy claiming like nine acres by description. BLM just calls ir 20.66 the full size you can claim for a lode.

For a lode the corners and monument need to go up at the time of the location.

However I have yet to come across a lode claim that has a single corner in place..or location monument in fact.

Of course they could have been vandalized or weathered away. But, from my experience they just plain weren't there.

Kinda lame that your annual paperwork asks if your monument or corner s are in place as of the date you submit.

yet it technically doesn't matter.

No wonder there are so many over filings. makes it harder to to find actual points on the ground. At least one to try and map out someones claim FOR THEM!!

I hate Lode claims in CA. Especially ones that have been purchased or inherited. So, far the owners of those I have met. Don't know where and how the claim is actually laid out themselves.

 

[Clay Diggins]

however you could make a discovery in an open area. Have a lode location notice to look at. That happens to have a terrible map (if at all)

and an even worse description of the claim.. I know of a guy claiming like nine acres by description. BLM just calls ir 20.66 the full size you can claim for a lode.

For a lode the corners and monument need to go up at the time of the location.

However I have yet to come across a lode claim that has a single corner in place..or location monument in fact.

Of course they could have been vandalized or weathered away. But, from my experience they just plain weren't there.

Kinda lame that your annual paperwork asks if your monument or corner s are in place as of the date you submit.

yet it technically doesn't matter.

No wonder there are so many over filings. makes it harder to to find actual points on the ground. At least one to try and map out someones claim FOR THEM!!

I hate Lode claims in CA. Especially ones that have been purchased or inherited. So, far the owners of those I have met. Don't know where and how the claim is actually laid out themselves.

Lame yes.

Technically it does matter whether you actually have monuments erected when you make your annual mining claim record. The penalty for lying on your affidavit is $200 and/or 6 months. But that penalty would be charged to the person who made the false claim only. It wouldn't affect the validity of the claim itself. The law doesn't appear to describe any penalty for missing markers - just the penalty for lying on your annual affidavit about those markers.

A lot of the lode claims in California were originally located with tree blaze corners or rock stacks. Obviously that can be a real problem 150 years later.

The State of California doesn't agree with the federal government on where many section corners are located. About a third of the land in California has never had a Public Land Survey performed. There have been a bunch of resurveys by federal, state, county assessor and private parties. All of that can be a problem too.

I'm always surprised when anyone in California knows where an actual physical corner is located. They've left you with a tough job compared to most other states.

Heavy Pans

 

[mikep691]

I believe it asks for the date you made your location, and that the markers were in place on that date, not that they were there every year after. Our location monument and corners were in place when we recorded in the county. Since then to corners have gone missing, and bears really like the 4x4 location monument. The corners, while not required in Ca., have to be in place only once. And that is at the time of location. We try to maintain our discovery monument, but either the bears or two legged animals keep pulling it up. But on that date of discovery, they were ALL in place. That's the date I put on my annual paperwork.

 

[Clay Diggins]

California law in part:

"3913. (a) Whenever labor is performed, improvements are made, or a
maintenance fee is paid as required by law upon any mining claim, the
person on whose behalf the labor was performed, improvements made,
or a maintenance fee was paid, or someone in his or her behalf,
shall, within 30 days after the time required by law for performing
the labor, making the improvements, or paying the maintenance fee,
make and have recorded by the county recorder, in the county in which
the mining claim is situated, an affidavit setting forth all of the
following:"
...
"(8) A statement that all monuments required by law to have been
erected upon the claim and all notices required by law to have been
posted on the claim or copies thereof were in place at a date within
the assessment year for which the affidavit is made and a statement
of the date.
(9) A statement that, at that date, each corner monument bore or
contained a marking sufficient to appropriately designate the corner
of the mining claim to which it pertains and the name of the claim.

(d) Any person who willfully makes a false statement with respect
to any mining claim on the affidavit required by subdivision (a), or
on the supplementary affidavit permitted by subdivision (c), is
guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, shall be punished by a
fine of not more than two hundred dollars ($200) or by imprisonment
in the county jail for not more than six months, or by both the fine
and imprisonment."

You can read the whole thing HERE in the Land Matters Library.

Heavy Pans

 

[mikep691]

Since corner posts/marker are not required by the State of California, They do not have to be maintained as such. They need to be placed at the time of location. Location monument absolutely has to be maintained

 

[spillercanyon]

I'm a bit confused. Why can't you claim a placer claim over a lode claim? The minerals one would have to find and work to stake a placer claim is different than the materials a lode claim would be processing and the lode material would never have to be disturbed. On the other hand, I believe you can't claim a lode claim over a placer claim unless their are outcroppings because you would have to move the placer material to get to the lode material which inherently would be illegal.

 

[Clay Diggins]

I'm a bit confused. Why can't you claim a placer claim over a lode claim? The minerals one would have to find and work to stake a placer claim is different than the materials a lode claim would be processing and the lode material would never have to be disturbed. On the other hand, I believe you can't claim a lode claim over a placer claim unless their are outcroppings because you would have to move the placer material to get to the lode material which inherently would be illegal.

The lode claimant owns ALL the minerals found within their claim. Basic mining law 101.

"1872 Mining Act
SEC. 3. That the locators of all mining locations heretofore made, or which shall hereafter be made, on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim exists at the passage of this act, so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with said laws of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations, and of all veins, lodes, and ledges throughout their entire depth"

There is nothing in the law that would allow a placer claim over an existing lode claim. The type of mining claim (lode or placer) is governed by the deposit type but each locator is entitled to exclusive ownership of all the valuable minerals found no matter how they are deposited.

Heavy Pans

 

[spillercanyon]

I guess I wouldn't pass Basic mining law 101. Haha

This is where I am confused:

From: Location and patenting of mining claims and mill sites in California, 2000 edition, pg. 33-34, "Location of Lode Over Placer Mining Claims and the Reverse".

"Placer mining claims have an equality both in procedure and rights with lode claims, but a lode claim provides no rights to placer deposits and a placer claim provides no rights to lode deposits (Clipper Mining Company v. Eli Mining and Land Company, 194 US 220(1904))."

"The above-cited Supreme Court decision discusses the fact that a person has no rights to enter upon a valid placer mining claim to search for, or locate a lode claim without the express permission of the placer mining claim claimant."

"if a claimant of a valid placer mining claim wishes to search for lodes on his or her claim, they may do so; but, they will have no title to lode minerals without filing a lode mining claim (Campbell v. McIntyre, 295 F. Cas. 45 (9th Cir., 1924))"

I thought that is why so many people here in the CA motherlode claim both lode and placer where appropriate.

Spiller

 

[spillercanyon]

The lode claimant owns ALL the minerals found within their claim. Basic mining law 101.

"1872 Mining Act
SEC. 3. That the locators of all mining locations heretofore made, or which shall hereafter be made, on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge, situated on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim exists at the passage of this act, so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with State, territorial, and local regulations not in conflict with said laws of the United States governing their possessory title, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations, and of all veins, lodes, and ledges throughout their entire depth"

There is nothing in the law that would allow a placer claim over an existing lode claim. The type of mining claim (lode or placer) is governed by the deposit type but each locator is entitled to exclusive ownership of all the valuable minerals found no matter how they are deposited.

Heavy Pans

The section that this was taken from pertains to ownership of deposits "throughout their entire depth", all the deposits mentioned are lode type deposits. Sec. 3. continues on to explain how this is done with "vertical planes drawn downward". I believe they had to clarify this for lode vs. placer and did so with future court cases.

Spiller

 

[Clay Diggins]

I guess I wouldn't pass Basic mining law 101. Haha

This is where I am confused:

From: Location and patenting of mining claims and mill sites in California, 2000 edition, pg. 33-34, "Location of Lode Over Placer Mining Claims and the Reverse".

"Placer mining claims have an equality both in procedure and rights with lode claims, but a lode claim provides no rights to placer deposits and a placer claim provides no rights to lode deposits (Clipper Mining Company v. Eli Mining and Land Company, 194 US 220(1904))."

"The above-cited Supreme Court decision discusses the fact that a person has no rights to enter upon a valid placer mining claim to search for, or locate a lode claim without the express permission of the placer mining claim claimant."

"if a claimant of a valid placer mining claim wishes to search for lodes on his or her claim, they may do so; but, they will have no title to lode minerals without filing a lode mining claim (Campbell v. McIntyre, 295 F. Cas. 45 (9th Cir., 1924))"

I thought that is why so many people here in the CA motherlode claim both lode and placer where appropriate.

Spiller

That's not a bad overview of the law. You are just missing one piece of the puzzle to understand why there is a difference in mining claim types.

First read the Mining Act of 1872. It's only 7 pages long and it really does cover all this stuff and a lot more.

Section 11 is where you will find the answer to your question. I put the key parts in bold type.

"SEC. 11. That where the same person, association, or corporation is in possession of a placer-claim, and also a vein or lode included within the boundaries thereof; application shall be made for a patent for the placer or lode claim, with the statement that it includes such vein or lode, and in such case (subject to the provisions of this act and the act entitled "An act to amend an act granting the right of way to ditch and canal owners over the public lands, and for other purposes," approved July eighteen hundred and seventy) a patent shall issue for the placer-claim, including such vein or lode, upon the payment of five dollars per acre for such vein or lode claim, and twenty-five feet of surface on each side thereof. The remainder of the placer-claim, or any placer-claim not embracing any vein or lode claim, shall be paid for at the rate of two dollars and fifty cents per acre, together with all costs of proceedings; and where a vein or lode, such as is described in the second section of this act, is known to exist within the boundaries of a placer-claim, all application for a patent for such placer-claim which does not include an application for the vein or lode claim shall be construed as a conclusive declaration that the claimant of the placer-claim has no right of possession but where the existence of a vein or lode in a placer-claim is not known, a patent for the placer-claim shall convey all valuable mineral and other deposits within the boundaries thereof."

Congress wanted to make sure they get all the money they are owed. Placer claim patents are half the price of lode claim patents. Placer claims cost $2.50 per acre and lodes cost $5.00 per acre to patent.

That doesn't sound like much money today but when the law was written a lode claim cost the equivalent of 5 ounces of gold. That's more than $8,000 in today's money. At the time it was enough money to make a considerable down payment on a decent sized ranch.

Congress was making sure miners couldn't game the system and hide more expensive lode claims by pretending they were less expensive placer claims. So if you knew of a lode under your placer when you applied for a patent you had the choice of declaring the lode and paying more for that part of the patent or you could allow the lode to be excluded from your placer patent.

The difference in claim types is in value not whether the minerals are found on the surface or at depth. It follows throughout history that lode claims produce a lot more mineral value per acre than placer claims. Still true today. Most claims are lodes for that reason. Minerals still in the rock are where it's at for most miners.


Heavy Pans

 

[spillercanyon]

I have indeed read the mining act of 1872, thanks for the advise.

This statement is in reference to someone who owns both a placer and lode claim and how to deal with the difference when being issued a patent. The whole statement is for those who possess both the lode and placer claims, which would be redundant if they owned all deposit types on the claim as you state.

I go back to my BLM book that specifically addresses this issue under the title "Location of Lode Over Placer Mining Claims and the Reverse". It clearly states that if you have a placer claim and want the rights to lode, you will have to file a lode claim over your placer claim. It also states that Placer claims have no rights to lode material and Lode claims have no rights to placer material. Is the BLM book incorrect?

Spiller

 

[Clay Diggins]

The section that this was taken from pertains to ownership of deposits "throughout their entire depth", all the deposits mentioned are lode type deposits. Sec. 3. continues on to explain how this is done with "vertical planes drawn downward". I believe they had to clarify this for lode vs. placer and did so with future court cases.

Spiller

"Throughout their entire depth" is the common language to describe both lode and placer claims in the law.

If you read Section 10 of the 1872 Mining Act, I suggested you read, you will see it specifically refers to the earlier (1870) placer act.

1872 Mining Act
SEC. 10. That the act entitled "An act to amend an act granting the right of way to ditch and canal owners over the public lands, and for other purposes," approved July ninth, eighteen hundred and seventy, shall be and remain in full force, except as to the proceedings to obtain a patent, which shall be similar to the proceedings prescribed by sections six and seven of this act for obtaining patents to vein or lode claims.

Now see the Placer Act of 1870 that is being specifically included "in full force" in the 1872 Mining Act:

"SEC. 12 And be it further enacted, That claims usually called "placers," including all forms of deposit. excepting veins of quartz, or other rock in place, shall be subject to entry and patent under this act, under like circumstances and conditions, and upon similar proceedings, as are provided for vein or lode claims"

Placer and lode claims have exactly the same exclusive right to all the valuable minerals found within their location. The ONLY exception to their equality under the law is the difference in price per acre for a patent. Before application for a patent there is no effective difference in the mineral rights between the two types of claims.

Heavy Pans

 

[Clay Diggins]

I go back to my BLM book that specifically addresses this issue under the title "Location of Lode Over Placer Mining Claims and the Reverse". It clearly states that if you have a placer claim and want the rights to lode, you will have to file a lode claim over your placer claim. It also states that Placer claims have no rights to lode material and Lode claims have no rights to placer material. Is the BLM book incorrect?

Spiller[/COLOR]

The book does not state that "if you have a placer claim and you want the rights to lode". The book refers to the patent process difference between KNOWN lodes located within placers.

Until you apply for a patent the mineral rights to a valid placer include the rights to known or unknown lodes. The very same court case you quoted says exactly that. Here is the whole text of the final judgement of the Supreme Court in the very important Clipper v Ely which you quoted a small part of.

"Although a placer location is not a location of lodes and veins beneath the surface, but simply a claim of a tract of ground for the sake of loose deposits upon or near the surface, and the patent to a placer claim does not convey the title to a known vein or lode within its area unless specifically applied and paid for, the patentee takes title to any lode or vein not known to exist at the time of the patent and subsequently discovered. The owner of a valid mining location, whether lode or placer, has the right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of the location.

One going upon a valid placer location to prospect for unknown lodes and veins against the will of the placer owner is a trespasser, and cannot initiate a right maintainable in an action at law to the lode and vein claims within the placer limits which he may discover during such trespass.

The owner of a placer location may maintain an adverse action against an applicant for a patent of a lode claim when the latter's application includes part of the placer grounds."

Your own Supreme Court source disproves your theory.

Heavy Pans