sale. It will be so construed as to effectuate the intention of the vendor. It will not be held void for uncertainty of description where the points named may be wellknown monuments. Nor is it void because it is a voluntary gift.11 The interest of a mortgagor, who retains possession until forfeiture, may be conveyed by him, or sold under attachment or execution against him.12 But one receiving a bill of sale of mining property, not under seal, which only purported to convey the interest of the vendor, took subject to all the infirmities of the vendor's title.13 A conveyance by sheriff's deed of a mining claim sold under execution must recite the judgment on which the execution was issued, otherwise it will be void.14 And the judgment and execution are facts necessary for one tracing his title through a sheriff's deed, to establish on the trial.15 Miners' Title Bonds, taken without a valuable consideration expressed in the instrument, by which the grantee or obligee (if he may be called either) obtains an option to purchase at a stated price, is void for the want of consideration and mutuality. The only title bonds which will be held valid and binding on either party are such as contain an unconditional promise to purchase, or where there is a consideration paid in money or work on the claim for the option.16 1 Jackson vs. Feather River, &c. Co., 14 Cal. 18; Blodgett vs. Potosi, &c. Co., 34 Cal. 227; Draper vs. Douglas, 23 Cal. 347. 2 Clark vs. McElroy, 11 Cal. 155 (citing Adams vs. Cuddy, 13 Pick. 463; Morse vs. Godfrey, 3 Story, 364; Dupont vs. Wertheman, 10 Cal. 354); Waring vs. Crow, 11 Cal. 366. 3 Gore vs. McBrayer, 18 Cal. 582; Table Mountain, &c. Co. vs. Stranahan, 20 Cal. 198, s. c., 21 Cal. 548; Gatewood vs. McLaughlin, 23 Cal. 178; Antoine Co. vs. Ridge Co., 23 Cal. 219; Mining Co. vs. Taylor, 100 U. S. 37. 4 Patterson vs. Keystone M. Co., 23 Cal. 575. 5 Copper Hill M. Co. vs. Spencer, 25 Cal. 18. ry vs. Campbell, 24 Cal. 634. n vs. Kidd, 26 Cal. 263. 8 Richardson vs. McNulty, 24 Cal. 339. 9 Cal. Stat. 1863, p. 98. 10 Patterson vs. Keystone M. Co., 30 Cal. 360; Hardinburgh vs. Bacon, 33 Cal. 356; Felger vs. Coward, 35 Cal. 650; Milton vs. Lombard, 51 Cal. 258. 11 Myers vs. Farquharson, 46 Cal. 190. 12 Halsey vs. Martin, 22 Cal. 645. 13 Clark vs. McElroy, 11 Cal. 155 (citing Adams vs. Cuddy, 13 Pick. 463; Morse vs. Godfrey, 3 Story, 364; Dupont vs. Wertheman, 10 Cal. 354). 14 Wiseman vs. McNulty, 25 Cal. 230. 15 Quirk vs. Folk, 47 Cal. 453. 16 Smith vs. Reynolds, 1 Col. Law Rep. 89, see. infra § 155 contracts. § 155. Mining contracts.-The law of contracts applies alike to mining as to other branches of business; but there are contracts entered into in this behalf that are somewhat peculiar in their operation. As, for example, contracts to convey, which are conditioned only upon the option of the purchaser to buy for a stated price, within a given time, without further consideration expressed in the bond. These bonds, or contracts, are in contemplation of law nothing more than open proposals, which may be withdrawn by the seller at any time before they are fully accepted, and the purchase price tendered by the purchaser. They are not binding upon either without a valuable consideration, or covenants which bind both parties to consummate the bargain.1 The payment of a forfeit in money or labor does not bind the purchaser to pay the balance. The forfeit is only the consideration which he pays for the option.2 Another kind of contract which figures conspicuously in mining enterprises, is the agreement to prospect for mines, to be located on joint account. Mines discovered by a prospector while such an agreement is in force makes the parties tenants in common of mines so discovered, and entitles each to the interest agreed upon.3 But if the contract has been abandoned by the prospector, and a new one entered into with another, the deserted partner has no interest in the mines discovered under the new contract. And such contracts may be specifically enforced against the active party to the agreement who locates in his own name.5 A contract by several to purchase jointly an interest in a mine, is for the benefit of all, and if one party takes the title in his own name, he may be compelled to convey to the others.6 Contracts by mining partnerships have been sustained, in the absence of a by-law authorizing them, where the contract was consistent with the general usages of the company. The general doctrine of agency applies to miners' contracts. But a superintendent has no authority by virtue of his employment to borrow money on the credit of his principal.8 1 Smith vs. Reynolds, 1 Col. Law Rep. 89 (U. S. Cir. Ct. Dist. Col.). 2 Gordon vs. Swan, 43 Cal. 564; North Georgia M. Co. vs. Latimer, 51 Ga. 67; Luckhart vs. Ogden, 30 Cal. 547. 3 Henderson vs. Allen, 23 Cal. 519. 4 Johnstone vs. Robinson, 2 Col. Law Rep. 110. 5 Sears vs. Collins, 1 Col. Law Rep. 489 (Sup. Ct. Col., April term, 1881); Welland vs. Huber, 8 Nev. 203. 6 First Nat'l Bank vs. Bissel, 1 Col. Law Rep. 158 (U. S. Cir. Ct. Col.). 7 Taylor vs. Castle, 42 Cal. 367. 8 Breed vs. First Nat'l Bank, 4 Col. 481. § 156. Miners' liens.-One of the most important local statutory provisions which is specially recognized by the law of Congress, is that giving liens upon mines for labor performed thereon.1 It has been decided under the Nevada statute that the foreman of a mine had a lien on the property for his salary.2 And in California, for cutting cord-wood for use at the mine, it not being denied the labor was done on the mine.3 The Nevada tras also construed to give a laborer a lien on a quartz mill for his services in hauling quartz to the mill.4 A ditch, though connected at different points by flumes, was held to be an excavation throughout, and not a superstructure, within the miners' lien act.5 But it seems subsequently to have been held in doubt whether or not a flume was a superstructure. One of several mining partners may have a lien upon the mine for money paid for working the same in excess of his proportion; also for debts due creditors, and one purchasing an interest during the progress of the work was held to be charged with notice of such lien.7 In Montana it has been held that an agent or superintendent employed to oversee the erection of buildings and the working of a mine was not entitled to a miner's or mechanic's lien for the payment of the monthly salary agreed upon.8 But that a superintendent whose traveling and living expenses were agreed to be borne by the joint property and business, held a lien upon such property and business, to which he must resort for reimbursement of his expenses before individual liability would attach.9 The miner cannot in general have one lien for work done on separate parcels of property, as for work done on a quartz mill and work done on a quartz mine, though the work was done upon both under the same contract.10 But where miners were employed in developing a mine, and a portion of the work was performed by contract at so much per foot, and a portion by contract at so much per day, it was held under the Nevada statute that they were not required to file separate liens for the work done by the foot and that done by the day, but that each could file his lien as for one continuous employment, and the time would not begin to run within which they must be filed until the last work was performed. But when the work has been completed on a quartz mill, by a party employed to build it, the mechanic's lien cannot be kept alive by occasional repairs subsequently contracted for.12 In general the lien law is not retroactive in its operations where it would affect the vested rights of third parties. As, where a lien was claimed under the California statute of April 30, 1868, and a mortgage was executed and recorded prior to the commencement of the work, it was held that the statute was not intended to give priority to the lien over the prior mortgage.13 It was also held under the Nevada statute that one employed at so much per day, payable monthly, would hold his lien subject to a subsequent mortgage from the end of the current month within which the mortgage was recorded.14 Where the act was passed February 6, 1867, it was held that a lien could only be held for work done subsequent to the date of its passage, and that an ordinary judgment should be entered for the work previously done.15 But it has been held that statutes giving liens may be retroactive where they do not affect the vested rights of third parties.16 And where there is a portion of the work to which the lien will not attach, the miner in appropriating payments, even after the work is completed, may credit the moneys received to that portion of the work for which he holds no lien.17 And an intermediate mortgagee will have no right to object to such appropriation.18 The lien law of Nevada is liberally construed by the courts, so as to give the miner and mechanic the full benefit of its provisions.19 The California act of 1868 was held not to violate the constitutional provision that "All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation," merely because it failed to give laborers, other than those working on mines, a lien for their compensation.20 The complaint of a party suing to enforce a lien must state facts sufficient to show a contract, on which he seeks to repover.21 But the description in the complaint was held ient where it called for a large building on certain |