Page images
PDF
EPUB

conditions, the minerals being disposable "under applicable laws." The Mineral Leasing Act of Feb. 25, 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181), is one of the "applicable laws" under which these minerals may be disposed of by the United States. 60-184

Section 2 of the act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 847), has no application to one who goes upon the public lands under a lease issued pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act. 60-208

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181) is not applicable to the ceded but undisposed-of lands of the Shoshone or Wind River Indian Reservation.

60-417 The phrase "lands owned by the United States," as used in the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 181), refers only to lands in which all rights are held by the United States, including the unrestricted right to use or dispose of the proceeds derived from the use of such lands. 60-417

An invalid withdrawal of lands did not prevent otherwise proper entries from being made on the lands. 61-77 Lands to which the United States holds only the bare legal title are not subject to leasing under the Mineral Leasing Act.

[blocks in formation]

Title to land formed by accretion to pubIlic land which extends across the former bed of a river to the record position of land disposed of when it was on the opposite bank vests in the United States and as public land is thereafter subject to disposition under the Mineral Leasing Act. 61-327

Where it appears possible that an applicant for a right-of-way for a natural gas pipeline across public land, who filed his application before the act of Aug. 12, 1953 (67 Stat. 557), was approved, and who has refused to file a common-carrier stipulation, may be exempted by that act from the common-carrier provision of section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act, but the record does not so show, the case will be remanded to the Bureau of Land Manage

[blocks in formation]

Where land is granted by United States without reservation of oil and gas, applications for lease on such land under the Mineral Leasing Act (act of Feb. 25, 1920, 41 Stat. 437, 30 U.S.C. 181, et seq., as amended) are properly denied. 58-522

In view of assurances from the Department of Agriculture that that Department interpreted the Louisiana law of servitude as being inapplicable to mineral reservations made by vendors of land to the United States, and that the Department contracted for the purchase of land on the basis that the vendors could reserve the minerals for over 10 years and assured such vendors that such reservations would be honored for the full period, this Department will give recognition to the mineral reservations for their full period. 59-523

The Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands merely grants to the Secretary of the Interior a permissive power to issue leases on the lands that are subject to the act; and, therefore, the determination as to whether lands of the Natchez Trace Parkway will or will not be leased under that act is discretionary with the Secretary.

II. LANDS SUBJECT TO

60-441

Lands acquired in connection with the public works program under the National Industrial Recovery Act may be leased by the Secretary of the Interior for the development of oil and gas pursuant to the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, except for such areas as may presently fall within one of the categories of lands that are specifically excepted from the 60-238 provisions of that act.

The fact that lands are being administered by the National Park Service does not necessarily bring such lands within the

[blocks in formation]

The lands within the Natchez Trace Parkway, not being within any category of acquired lands expressly excepted from the scope of the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands, are subject to leasing under that act. 60-441

The Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands is applicable to all acquired lands, other than those expressly excepted in the act. 60-441

The Natchez Trace Parkway is not a national park or a national monument and, hence, is not within the exception, "national parks or monuments," stated in section 3 of the Mineral Leasing Act for Acquired Lands. 60-441

MINES AND MINING

Where potential production of coal mines already opened within a given area is in excess of demand, further applications for permission to prospect are for the time being properly denied.

MINING CLAIMS

55-13

[blocks in formation]

I. GENERALLY

Instructions of July 14, 1927, mining claims; data for field investigations, (Cir. No. 1128). 52-190

Section 37 of the act of Feb. 25, 1920, affords notice to all persons interested in mineral locations containing minerals mentioned therein of the conditions under which they may maintain their claims and protect the deposits claimed from the operation of the act. 52-282

The rule to the effect that it is not within the province of the courts to question the judgment of a property owner in the legitimate use of his property, or to determine whether one mode of use would be more beneficial than another, will not be applied for the benefit of a mining claimant if the plan pursued can have no reasonable adaptation to its alleged purpose, the mere assertion that it was pursued for that purpose being insufficient, even though good faith in its pursuit be conceded.

52-283

Questions concerning the respective rights of adverse claimants to possession of mineral lands, under locations thereof, are to be determined by the courts, but for administrative purposes the Land Department has jurisdiction to determine whether at the date of a withdrawal a valid right had attached to any tract within the limits of the withdrawal. 52-296

The fact that a mining claimant, after diligent prosecution of work looking to discovery of oil and gas on his claim, discovers small quantities of oil, and thereafter abandons further development, permits the improvements to go to ruin or be sold and the property to lie idle, and possession to be taken under the agricultural land laws, is very persuasive that he did not regard the showings of oil sufficient to warrant further expenditure and development. 52-313

The principle that the courts will not substitute their judgments as to the wisdom or expediency of the methods employed in the development of mining claims does not apply to improvements that have no direct relation to mining operations.

52-313

The only method by which an owner of a mining claim may acquire by forfeiture under the mining laws the interest of his

co-owners for noncontribution to the expenditures made on the claim is by the service of notice upon the delinquent coowner in the manner prescribed by section 2324, R.S. 52-550

Where a mining claim is owned by two or more persons the possession of one is the possession of all, and there can be no abandonment by one owner so long as his co-owner continues in possession. 52-550 An interest in a mining claim is real estate, vendible and inheritable. 53-26

A charge of abandonment of tailings impounded on public land on the ground that breakages in cribbing due to age and decay of the logs that retained them were not repaired, that a large amount of the tailings had escaped, and that there was an absence of any specific acts towards their conservation for a long period of time and discontinuance long ago of active mining operations by the company that placed them on the land, is refuted by the facts that about 75 percent of the cribbing is still intact, that the tailings had settled to such an extent as to render cribbing protection no longer necessary, that they had been purchased as personal property at a sheriff's sale and taxes paid thereupon, that rights in the land had been invoked by the purchaser under the millsite law, and that he expected to treat them at some future time. 53-116

To establish abandonment both the intention to abandon and actual relinquishment must be shown; mere failure to check deterioration in value that follows from lapse of time of unproductive property is not of itself conclusive as to abandonment.

53-116

"Abandonment" is the giving up or relinquishment of property to which a person is entitled, with no purpose of again claiming it and without any concern as to who may subsequently take possession, and does not depend upon any rules or regulations or customs of mining, but is largely, if not entirely, a matter of the locator's intention, to be determined from his acts and statements together with the circumstances of the particular case. 53-195

A perfected mining location is real estate and the same formalities for conveyancing are necessary to transmit title as in cases of other real property.

53-196

The act of May 12, 1928 (45 Stat. 501) granting publicly owned lands in the Custer State Park to the State of South Dakota virtually repealed the act of Mar. 3,1925 (43 Stat. 1185) and terminated the jurisdiction of the Land Department to determine controversies between the State and mining claimants as to any asserted mining claims within the grant and to accept purchase money and issue patents on applications unperfected under the latter act at the date of the grant. 53-196

The excepting clause in section 37 of the leasing act differs essentially from the excepting clauses in grants of lands to railroad companies in that the former saves valid claims existent at the date of the act so long as they are maintained in compliance with the laws under which they are initiated while the latter excluded the excepted lands effectually and completely from the grants. 53-214

Assuming that a mining claimant was dissuaded from filing his mineral application and was induced to abandon work on his locations through the advice of an officer of a local land office that his locations were invalid because of apparent conflict with a prior coal withdrawal, which advice was due to claimant's misdescription of the land claimed, he cannot plead that the Government is by such advice estopped from later bringing proceedings charging abandonment. 53-251

A co-owner who is not made a party to an application for a patent to a mining claim is not required to adverse or protest the application and the fact that he does not object is not sufficient warrant for ignoring the existence of his outstanding title. 53-312

A mining claim embracing a tract of land including a right-of-way previously granted under the act of Mar. 3, 1875 (18 Stat. 482) carries neither title to the land included in the right-of-way nor any interest in or to any mineral deposits beneath the surface thereof.

53-339

The Government does not owe any duty to seek to have a trust imposed on the title of a State to an approved indemnity school-land selection, in the absence of evidence of fraud in making and perfecting it, in favor of a mining claimant who had not made claim to the land in the

Land Department or filed protest after legally constructive notice before its approval, even though he might have shown a better right to the land under the mining laws. 53-439

No distinction is to be made between valid mining locations in national parks and those on the unreserved public domain with respect to the acts required by the owners thereof to preserve their rights. 53-491

Actual, open and notorious possession of a mining claim continued from year to year without performance of the full amount of work each year required under the mining act will not prevent a forfeiture of the claim. Honaker v. Martin (27 Pac. 297), and McCormick v. Baldwin (37 Pac. 903). 53-572 The fact that the records of the Land Department show that a tract of public land is free from claim of any kind is not conclusive that the land has not been validly appropriated under the mining laws. 54-47

The fiduciary relationship between cotenants of a mining claim is not terminated by the relocation of the claim by one coowner unless there has been an abandonment or, by reason of laches, the relocation has become immune from attack by the adverse possession law of the State in which the claim is situated.

54-62

Instructions of July 21, 1932, in regard to mining claims on the public domain (Cir. No. 1278). 54-134

One who elects to take an oil and gas permit is bound by such election, and rights under the mining laws which might otherwise be asserted must be deemed abandoned. 54-166

One who is granted permission to drill test well under the provisions of section 13 of the Oil and Gas Leasing Act, who does not at the time disclose that he is a claimant under the placer mining laws, is estopped from afterwards making such claim. 54-166

Where an oil and gas prospecting permit was granted prior to the publication of an application for patent to the land under the Mineral Law, it is the duty of the patent applicant to contest the permit and not the duty of the permittee to adverse the patent application. 54-166

Where deposits of colemanite and ulexite have been located as placer upon reliance upon a practice in the Land Department to permit the patenting of lands containing such minerals solely as placer locations, the placer claimants should not have their rights assailed because the deposits might more appropriately be deemed lode in form and character. 54-183

Equities are not established against the United States by expenditures on lands in ignorance of the prior certification and approval of selection thereof by the State, the fact of such certification and approval being duly noted upon the local land office records. 54-475

Mining Regulations, Par. 37 (b), Cir. No. 1337, amending Cir. No. 430, Apr. 11, 1922 (49 L.D. 15, 58). 55-6

Instructions of Mar. 12, 1935, concerning mining claims on the public domain, (Cir. No. 1278 revised). 55-235

The Secretary of the Interior has authority to determine that a mining claim is invalid for lack of discovery, for fraud, or other defect, or that it is subject to cancellation for abandonment.

55-287

A mere application to make a stockraising homestead works no severance of the mineral from the surface estate, and upon the rejection of the application an intervening mining claim attaches to the surface as well as to the minerals. Case of Filtrol Company v. Brittan and Echart (51 L.D. 649), distinguished. 55-605

Successful mineral contestant cannot exercise a preference right of entry under the stock-raising homestead law and at the same time assert that he has a right to the land by virtue of prior mining locations. Upon the filing of his application to make stock-raising homestead entry, such filing will be held to have the legal effect of an abandonment of his asserted mining claims. 56-23

Abandonment is a question of intention and the evidence thereof must be clear. Lapse of time, absence from the ground, failure to work the claim for any definite period in the absence of other circumstances are not evidence of abandonment.

57-244

One cotenant of a mining claim may abandon his own interest therein so as to

preclude him from afterwards asserting an interest therein, but he cannot thereby affect the interest of his cotenants. Contra; Alaska-Dano Mines Company, 52 L.D. 550, overruled. 57-244

As the possession of one cotenant is the possession of all, no abandonment can be based on the absence of one of the cotenants, even if he makes a sale of the absent tenant's interest. 57-245

A claimant of land cannot be heard to say he has a right to make homestead entry thereof and at the same time assert that he has a right thereto by virtue of a prior placer mining location, but if he files a proper application to make homestead entry it has the legal effect of an abandonment of all estate, right or interest he may have in the prior mining location. 58-474

Where proceedings were brought charging the invalidity of a placer mining claim located on account of borate mineral and one of the locators who had settled upon and improved the land prior to the withdrawal of Nov. 26, 1934, filed an application to make homestead entry thereof alleging the land was nonmineral, and upon dismissal of the proceedings, the applicant and his co-locators expressed the view that no discovery had been made and their willingness to relinquish the mining claim; Held, that in order that the mining claim may be deemed entirely extinguished, in the absence of an adjudication in a proper proceeding that it is void, all present record claimants of the mining title must either join in a relinquishment of the claim to the United States or convey their individual interest therein to the homestead applicant, who thereupon may file such a relinquishment and thereby remove all question as to the propriety of allowing the homestead entry by reason of the existence of any mineral not subject to reservation.

58-475

The Department's duty to administer the public domain precludes sanction of monopolies of large areas through locations held without compliance with the law. 58-567

The concurring decisions of the register (now manager) of the local land office and the Commissioner of the General Land Office (now Director of the Bureau of Land Management) on questions of fact are gen

erally not disturbed on appeal to the Secretary unless clearly wrong. 59-446

Nonmetalliferous volcanic cinder aggregates on withdrawn public land which can be extracted and marketed at a profit may be acquired by a placer mining location under the mining laws upon restoration of the withdrawn land. Unless and until the lands are restored and are classified under section 7 of the Taylor Grazing Act, it is unnecessary to determine whether such lands are "valuable chiefly for stone" under the Timber and Stone Act. 59-467

Only those mining claims relating to oil and the other minerals named in section 37 of the Mineral Leasing Act on which a valid discovery had been made prior to the effective date of the act, or on which work leading to a discovery was being diligently prosecuted on the date of the act and was thereafter continued to a valid discovery, were preserved by the section. 60-309

Mining claimants who protest the issuance of an oil and gas lease on land covered by their claim have the burden of proving that they have a valid, subsisting claim.

60-343

The usefulness of the area of a claim in connection with the development of mineral deposits on nearby lands is not sufficient to validate the claim. 60-473

A mining claimant who protests against an application for an oil and gas lease on the land covered by the claim has the burden of showing, as a minimum, that a valid location had been made on the area of the claim prior to the time when the application for an oil and gas lease was filed. 61-43

A motion for a new trial will be granted by the Department only upon the ground of newly discovered evidence; and it must appear, among other things, that such evidence is material to the issues involved in the case and that its lack at the previous hearing injuriously affected the substantial rights of the applicant. 61-43

The Secretary of the Interior (or his delegate) may assume jurisdiction at any stage of a public-land proceeding that is pending before the Department, without waiting for the matter to come before him by way of appeal or otherwise. 61-43

« PreviousContinue »