lode claim question |
lode claim question |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
Diggin' In! ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 38 Joined: 24-June 14 From: Colorado Springs, Colorado Member No.: 117,866 ![]() |
If the area that I'd like to claim has a mineral vein running through it and I stake a lode claim, does that include any areas due to erosion or topography bat the vein breaches he surface? There is an area on a hillside that the vein breaches and starts to weather and material floats down the hillside into a ravine, becoming a placer deposit. If all that is contained inside the boundaries of my claim, do I have the rights to that as well
|
|
|
![]() |
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
Shovel Buster! ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 107 Joined: 23-September 14 Member No.: 118,169 ![]() |
The locator of a mining claim has exclusive possession of ALL the valuable minerals within the claim no matter what the deposit type is. Placer material on a Lode claim always belongs to the lode owner.
From the 1872 Mining Act SEC. 3 QUOTE That the locators of all mining locations heretofore made, or which shall hereafter be made, on any mineral veln, 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 Placer claims located over lode claims are never valid. There are no exceptions in the law. This has been restated many times by the courts including one of the most important mining cases of all time. Cole v Ralph was decided by the Supreme Court in 1920 and it addressed many of these misunderstandings about the difference between the nature of a mineral deposit and the type of claim located on the deposit. Cole v Ralph decided many unclear mining rights and in particular restated many of the rights and duties inherent in claiming a mineral location. No matter what your level of interest I would suggest every miner read and understand Cole v Ralph. From Cole v Ralph QUOTE While the two kinds of location—lode and placer—differ in some respects, a discovery within the limits of the claim is equally essential to both. But to sustain a lode location the discovery must be of a vein or lode of rock in place bearing valuable mineral, and to sustain a placer location it must be of some other form of valuable mineral deposit, one such being scattered particles of gold found in the softer covering of the earth. A placer discovery will not sustain a lode location, nor a lode discovery a placer location. A lode claim can be located within the bounds of a placer claim in two very specific circumstances. These lode claims do not lie over the placer but instead replace that portion of a placer claim with the lode. The reason for this rare exception is best explained by the law itself: Once again from the 1872 Mining Act SEC. 11 QUOTE 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. Obviously the government wants their money. Lode claims cost twice as much ($5.00 per acre) to patent as placer claims ($2.50 per acre). ![]() Once you understand the concept of "discovery" you will realize that an invited prospector on your placer claim can claim any lodes they discover. ![]() Uninvited prospectors have no such right. Those that commit mineral trespass are legally prohibited from making lode claims on existing valid placer claims. You might want to have a clear understanding (in writing) as to just what is on offer when you invite others to prospect your claim. ![]() |
|
|
![]() ![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 15th July 2025 - 03:13 PM |