Laserfiche WebLink
claim is open to relocation by a rival claimant as it no location had ever been made." <br /> There is no statement"unless you return to work." <br /> This is also supported by the case law. In Topaz Beryllium Company v. United <br /> States, 479 F. Supp. 309, 315 (D. Utah 1979) the court held that "the beneficiary of the <br /> deemed abandonment...is the owner of the land, the United States. The claim no <br /> longer exists. It is no longer subject to acquisition, succession, resuscitation or <br /> resurrection by anyone. He who is interested must start anew." <br /> Based upon the above authorities, the Court concludes that resumption of work <br /> on the White Banks Claims by Mr. Congdon in May of 2005 did not prohibit a relocation <br /> of the claims by the Skinners. If Mr. Congdon wanted to keep the claims he had to <br /> perform all the acts of location all over again. <br /> DISCOVERY <br /> Defendants contend that because Plaintiff did not "discover" any valuable <br /> minerals they did not perfect their claim. <br /> According to the testimony of Mr. Schifrin, who the Court finds to be more <br /> credible than Mr. Clay, discovery occurs when a mineral is found. For example, if you <br /> pick up a rock and there is gold there, you have made a discovery. It is not actually <br /> required that you mine that mineral at that time because discovery is a process. <br /> Given the parties decades-long familiarity with the mining claims, including prior <br /> co-ownership of the White Banks claims and of Ms. Skinner's co-ownership in the <br /> claims, the Skinners did discover a valuable mineral. They discovered, alabaster and <br /> marble both of which are valuable. (See Report of Bruce Collins). <br /> 21 <br />