Laserfiche WebLink
Page Four <br />Therefore,.it is my conclusion and finding of fact that <br />there was no valid location of the Pilot #l, b'lukunda, and <br />the Mukunda #2 lode mining claims. With respect to Pilot <br />#2, there is a peymatite dike on the premises which would <br />support a lode location on that particular claim. Plaintiff <br />did not identify the pegmatite dike as the vein or lode which <br />supported that claim. It is probably a happy coincidence <br />that there is a pegmatite dike on Pilot #2 which has veins <br />which would support a lode claim. <br />To find that the lode locations for Pilot #1, Mukunda, <br />and Mukunda #"). wou.td be to find that granite bedrock was <br />1 huye lode, which ~oould support all 3 claims. I do not <br />perceive that to be the.law as to what constitutes a lode. <br />There caas no proof of any kind that the pegmatite dike <br />that is oii Pilot #2 extends under Pilot #1, Mukunda, or <br />Mukunda #2. There was no evidence that this pegmatite dike <br />was the basis for the original location for any of the <br />claims and it could not have been the mineral found in <br />place on Pilot #1, Mukunda or Mukunda (`2. There was no <br />evidence of any veins in any of these 3 claims which is <br />satisfactory or convincing to this finder o£ fact. <br />The mineral on the Rubeck placer, Rubeck placer #2, <br />and Little Gem is placer in nature and those are valid <br />placer mining claims. <br />The holding of the Supreme Court of the United States <br />that ". a placer discovery will not sustain a lode <br />location, nor a 1or]e discovery a placer location". COLE <br />v.!?Al.PH 252 U. S. 266 (1920)is authority that plaintiffs <br />att•~mpt to locate .lode locations cannot hold the placer <br />deposicson the property. The locator must, at his peril <br />ident.:.fy the character of the deposits he locates. <br />'.'he Courts in Colorado have defined the requisites <br />of lode locations on many occasions. MCMULLIN v. MAGNUSON <br />102 Colorado 230,78 P. 2d 964: <br />"Thus the 2 essential elements of a lode are <br />(a) a mineral bearing rock, which must be in place <br />and have reasonable trend and continuity,~and <br />(b) the reasonably distinct boundaries on each side <br />of the same". <br />That language is cited with approval in the case of <br />TITANIUM AC'PYNITE INOCISTRIES v. MCLENNAN 272 F, 2d, 667. <br />Considering the definitions of the Supreme Court of Colorado <br />and other Courts, it is evident. that plaintiffs claims, <br />Pilot #1, Mukunda and Mukunda #2 were invalid for all purposes, <br />and establish no rights in plaintiffs and the other locators. <br />