Laserfiche WebLink
mines. The testimony from Ms. Skinner is that they wanted to relocate the White Banks <br /> Claims in order to protect their children's interests which she felt was being threatened <br /> by Mr. Congdon's actions. This is supported by the fact that as of June of 2005, Mr. <br /> Congdon had not given his children an additional 40% interest in the mine as had been <br /> agreed in the Formation Agreement. In June of 2005, Ms. Skinner had also invested <br /> over $300,000 in the White Banks Claims which had not been paid back so she had a <br /> vested interest in maintaining the claims. For all of these reasons, the Court concludes <br /> that there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of the Skinners in relocating the White <br /> Banks Claims. <br /> PEDIS POSSESSIO <br /> Defendants argue that between May of 2005 when Mr. Congdon returned to the <br /> White Banks Claims and August 5, 2005 when he filed his certificates of location, Mr. <br /> Congdon held the claims based upon the doctrine of pedis possessio. <br /> The doctrine of pedis possessio means that if a qualified person peaceably <br /> enters vacant, unappropriated public domain for the purpose of exploring for a valuable <br /> mineral, while he is so exploring he may exclusively hold the place where he is working <br /> against those having no better rights and he will be protected against all forcible, <br /> fraudulent, or clandestine intrusions so long as he remain in continuous, exclusive <br /> occupancy and diligently works toward making a discovery. 34 RRMLF-INST 8 (1988); <br /> See also, Geomet, 602 P.2d at 1340. <br /> The flaw in Defendants argument is that the doctrine does not apply in this case. <br /> Pedis possessio only applies while a person is working toward making a discovery. <br /> Here, Mr. Congdon had made his discovery on the White Banks Claims as far back as <br /> 19 <br />