Laserfiche WebLink
they at most posted only a corner location stake where it was undisputed that no mineralization <br /> was found. '' <br /> Second, based on undisputed facts, the Skinners did not comply 1 with theo)(Q7do <br /> requirement at C.R.S. § 34-43-116 for a relocator to sink a new shaft or sink a shaft 10 <br /> feet deeper. <br /> Third, based on undisputed facts, including facts concerning kinner's role as an <br /> officer and shareholder in the company managing the White k Claims and her role as a <br /> V <br /> creditor in Mr. Congdon's bankruptcy, the Skinners did not eet the additional independent <br /> I <br /> requirement that they enter the claims in good faith. A <br /> Fourth, the Court holds that the doctrieedis possessio applies to relocators such as <br /> Mr. Congdon who are working to reesta 'sh discovery as required by applicable federal and <br /> state law, and meet the requiremN invoke that doctrine through active and exclusive <br /> possession of the claims, thus �Onting location of rival claims. For this additional reason, the <br /> Skinners' clandestine en T, ing a time period when Mr. Congdon was working at his mine on <br /> the White Banks ould not produce any legitimate, cognizable claim to the White Banks <br /> Claims. <br /> ourt further holds that, pursuant to its prior summary judgment order, it was law of <br /> the case that the 1872 General Mining Law rather than the Federal Law Policy and Management <br /> Act applies to adjudicate a private party dispute over mining claims. Accordingly, Mr. Congdon <br /> was entitled to invoke the resumption doctrine and met the requirements for doing so to defeat <br /> the Skinners' claim of title. <br /> 3 <br />