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 👍

Family Maps of Hinds County, Mississippi, Deluxe Edition - Grab it through Amazon!

[spillercanyon]

"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

"That claims usually called "placers," including all forms of deposit. excepting veins of quartz, or other rock in place", or excepting lode deposits; they differentiate this to show that the placer claim has no rights to the lode. They are different in that they are claiming two different deposit types and need both to cover all deposit types, again going back to my BLM book "Location and patenting of mining claims and mill sites in California". Is BLM incorrect in stating that placer claims have no rights to lode deposits and lode deposits have no rights to placer deposits?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[mofugly13]

I think I understand what Clay is pointing out. There is no reason to differentiate, pretty much, until you apply for a patent, and it's time to pay Uncle Sam.

Now, if one were to be granted a patent on their lode claim, such that now they own the land and the mineral rights to the lode deposit, who has ownership of the rights to any existing placer deposits on that same piece of land.

The language Clay quotes above seems to indicate that a patented placer deposit includes the rights to any unknown lode deposits. Key word being 'unknown'.

What happens when I discover a quartz outcrop containing gold on my placer claim?

What happens when I discover a quartz outcrop containing gold on my placer patent?

 

[spillercanyon]

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 say 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

Everything you have been stating is for patented mining claims and what to do with any other rights, or absence of them, on the property being patented. This is why it is good to file both placer and lode claims if you intend to patent your claim so as to not have a conflict with someone else's rights if they were to file the other claim type (if and when they again start issuing patents). Only with a patented mining claim do you have "the right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of the location", a non-patented mining claim only gives you the rights to the minerals you have claimed and does not give you exclusive possession and enjoyment of all the surface. Non-patented mining claims only cover the minerals being claimed, placer or lode, and do not cover the other, clearly stated in BLM's book.

It is a matter of patented vs. non-patented mining claims. I assume the original poster was inferring to non-patented mining claims as patented mining claims are private property in which they own all minerals and would be illegal to prospect without the owners permission.

Spiller

 

[spillercanyon]

I think I understand what Clay is pointing out. There is no reason to differentiate, pretty much, until you apply for a patent, and it's time to pay Uncle Sam.

Now, if one were to be granted a patent on their lode claim, such that now they own the land and the mineral rights to the lode deposit, who has ownership of the rights to any existing placer deposits on that same piece of land.

The language Clay quotes above seems to indicate that a patented placer deposit includes the rights to any unknown lode deposits. Key word being 'unknown'.

What happens when I discover a quartz outcrop containing gold on my placer claim?

What happens when I discover a quartz outcrop containing gold on my placer patent?

If you have a lode patent, you own all the mineral rights on the claim, the placer would be yours.

If you find gold in quartz on your placer claim, file a lode claim as well.

If you find quartz on your patented claim, you own all the rights to all the minerals on the patent so mine away. This is the difference between patented and non-patented mining claims. If it is patented, you own all the rights to that land, possession of the surface and all that lies below it. If it is non-patented, than the government owns everything about that property except the mineral rights that are claimed, placer or lode but not both, that takes two claims.

Spiller

 

[Clay Diggins]

If it is non-patented, than the government owns everything about that property except the mineral rights that are claimed, placer or lode but not both, that takes two claims.

Spiller

This is simply not true. The Supreme Court in Clipper v Eli ruled against the Clipper mining company who had overclaimed the existing placer claim. Once again their decision against the lode claimants:

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.

You won't find any laws or mining cases that say anyone has a right to overclaim a valid existing placer claim without the permission of the owner of the placer claim.
You won't find any laws or mining cases that say anyone has a right to overclaim a valid existing lode claim under any circumstances.

A valid placer claim can not be prospected or claimed by another. Only when it comes to a patent application does the placer owner have to make a separate claim for known lodes. That's why the phrase "the right to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of the location" is repeated in the mining laws.

Heavy Pans

 

[Clay Diggins]

What happens when I discover a quartz outcrop containing gold on my placer claim?

What happens when I discover a quartz outcrop containing gold on my placer patent?

When you discover a hardrock gold deposit on your placer mining claim it would be wise to claim the lode separately. There is no legal requirement to do so but if you were to permit another person to prospect your placer they could make a lode claim if they discover the deposit. If you don't allow another person to prospect your placer claim no person but you would have a right to locate the lode deposit.

If you discover a quartz outcrop on your private property that was patented under the placer law you would own that deposit free and clear. It's private property once it's patented. It's no longer a mining claim nor is it subject to the mining law.

Heavy Pans

 

[IMAUDIGGER]

My two cents...the government does NOT own any gold bearing land.
They hold in trust, lands owned by legal citizens of the United States.

Sorry to get in the middle.

 

[mofugly13]

My two cents...the government does NOT own any gold bearing land.
They hold in trust, lands owned by legal citizens of the United States.

Sorry to get in the middle.

Thank you. Its important to remember that. Freedom baby....FREEDOM.

 

[Goldwasher]

If you have a lode patent, you own all the mineral rights on the claim, the placer would be yours.

If you find gold in quartz on your placer claim, file a lode claim as well.

If you find quartz on your patented claim, you own all the rights to all the minerals on the patent so mine away. This is the difference between patented and non-patented mining claims. If it is patented, you own all the rights to that land, possession of the surface and all that lies below it. If it is non-patented, than the government owns everything about that property except the mineral rights that are claimed, placer or lode but not both, that takes two claims.

Spiller[/QUOT

Just not true. If it is a piece of float. Gold in quartz that is Placer.

A lode claim is (supposed to be) based on the actual lode strike. Claiming the vein or deposit in situ.

Any placer within the boundaries of the lode claim also belongs to the lode owner. No placer claim required. No one can prospect without permission.

No one with out permission of the owner may enter a placer claim looking four an undiscovered lode.

The owners(s) of that placer claim do not need permission from themselves to discover a lode. They most certainly can work it with out filing a lode claim for it.

It would only matter when the decision of what type of claim the patent would be. The largest a lode could be is 20.66 acres.

Depending on owners a placer could be 160.. however a mineral survey would be likely to knock that down quite a bit.

I don't have my own vakidity book or the new one. I know the section you are quoting. Though I don't think you are reading it and putting it all together correctly.

It does not take two claims to have the rights to the minerals on the claim. Even if its a "gold" claim. You have the rights to every valuable mineral within it.

Notice that when you file a location the question is never asked. "what mineral are you claiming?"

All a patent did was remove the land from public domain. Most private land in the west was some form of patent.

the interestin thing is that land has sold many times over. Most retaining mineral rights. So, you as an owner now. May not actually have the right to "mine away"

Just because you own what was once a mining claim that was patented.

I don't like the term "Patented Mining Claim" as a noun/title. It becomes more of a description of ownership title chain. As the moment you gain the patent. It is no longer a mining claim. It is really just a new private parcel.

Loses all connection to the Federal Mining Laws as those are mainly about claiming possesion and exploration ,development and marketing of resources in the public domain.

Once patented you are MORE under the thumb and scope of County and State laws in regards to actual mining.

 

[Clay Diggins]

I don't like the term "Patented Mining Claim" as a noun/title. It becomes more of a description of ownership title chain. As the moment you gain the patent. It is no longer a mining claim. It is really just a new private parcel.

This bothers me too. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that there is no such thing as a "patented mining claim".

Here's from the IRON SILVER MIN. CO. v. CAMPBELL Supreme Court decision in 1890.

throughout the whole of these sections, and the original statute from which they are transferred to the Revised Statutes, the words 'claim' and 'claimant' are used. These words are, in all legislation of congress on the subject, used in regard to a claim not yet perfected by a title from the government by way of a patent

You will find that same distinction in all the mining cases. A mineral patent once granted is no longer a mining claim - it's just private land. Mixing the two terms is confusing and misleading.

Heavy Pans