PERMFILE109702 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 6 of 33 ' 31 RMMLF-INST 12 (1985) Page 5 31 RMMLF-INST 12 (1985) (Publication page references are not available for this document.) placer deposits sometimes called 'Fossil placers,' are likely to be ]i[hiGed, tilted, and partially or wholly buried beneath other rocks. [FN19] ' (3] Selection of the Form of Location The legal consequences and rights attending a mining location vary according [o the form of [he location as lode or placer. ' [a] Erroneous Identification as Lode or Placer ' A most fundamental consequence arises from a failure to select the proper form of location. As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Cole v, Ralph, a 'placer discovery will not sustain a lode location, nor a lode discovery a placer location.' [FN20] Notwithstanding the apparent unfairness to the prior locator who has acted in good faith yet made a bona fide mistake in selecting the form of location, the rule has been followed in subsequent ' judicial and administrative decisions to invalidate claims erroneously located as lode or placer. [FN2I] Locating a (ode deposit as a placer claim and attempting [o seek a patent therefor may even be viewed as a fraud upon [he government. [FN22] Thus, it is said that the locator acts at his own peril when selecting [he form of location. [FN23] The harsh result of the mle stated in Cole v. Ralph has, however, been tempered somewhat by [he use of ' [he adverse possession statute to save some claims, [FN24] as well as by [he apparent effort of some courts to accept local customs and practices, and [o give deference to the prior locator in uncertain cases. [FN25] uences [b] Other Conse ' q Although a primary concern of the mineral locator should be the proper identification of the deposit as lode or placer, locators should also be aware of [he nature of the estate obtainable, and the other legal consequences and ' rights flowing from the two forms of location. [FN26] A lode location is considered to provide a greater and more extensive estate than a placer location. [FN27] Placer locations lack extrala[eral rights and do not provide possession of lodes known [o exist within their limits. ' [FN28] The problem of lodes within placers, discussed more fully below, casts a cloud of uncertainty on placer locations and patents. [FN29] Another distinctive difference between [he two forms of location is [heir size and shape. Lode locations may be t no larger than 1,500 feet in length and 600 feet in width. [FN30] Placer locations should be located in conformance with the public land survey if [he lands are surveyed, and may range in size from 20 acres for a single locator and up to 160 acres for an association of eight locators. [FN31] The allowance for association placers may be ' perceived by locators as an opportunity to obtain a lazger area within a single location and thereby increase the area [hat may be held by a single discovery and reduce [he costs of location and assessment work. These perceived advantages may be far outweighed by the risks and difficulties attending association placers. [FN32] ' Another interesting distinction between the two forms of location relates [o the appropriation of excess surface by junior locators. In [heir excellent article, Sherwood and Greer suggest that a placer location on unsurveyed ground may afford gmater protection than a lode location against junior locators who seek to appropriate excess ' ground within [he senior location. [FN33] Discovery requirements also vary. It is fundamental to both forms of location [hat there be a discovery of valuable mineral [FN34] For a lode location, however, [he discovery must also be proved [o be in a lode or vein of ' rock in place. [FN35] On the other hand, a placer location, although supportable by a single discbvery regardless of ©2006 Thomson/Wes[. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. ' 1 1 6/14/2006 ~~