discovery shaft on said lode being represented as occupying a central position between the side boundary lines of the survey; and inasmuch as the Franklin lode was the prior discovery, and as said surveyed surface ground is neither shown, nor claimed to include any buildings or other improvements not pertaining to the Franklin lode, it is not perceived how in justice the very parties who originally located and sold the claim, can now appear against their successors in interest to prevent them from having the benefit of the mining statutes of Congress, and this office therefore declines to suspend the application on account of this objection. At the same time it is proper to state that neither these adverse claimants, nor any other parties, need be under any apprehensions that said company will take by their patent any other lode than the Franklin, upon which the required amount has been expended in labor and improvements, all other lodes or veins being "expressly excepted and excluded" from the conveyance, that being a general condition inserted in all mining patents. Exception. With regard to the question of the lien claimed by the said adverse parties upon a portion of the property, it will be perceived by a reference to the thirteenth section of the Amendatory Mining Act of ninth July, 1870 (which constitutes a part of the original mining enactments), that a proviso is contained therein, "That nothing in this act shall be deemed to impair any lien, which may have attached in any way whatever to any mining claim or property-thereto attached prior to the issuance of a patent." If, therefore, as alleged, the parties opposing this application have such lien upon the premises, or any portion thereof, they are fully protected by the law of Congress itself, and after the patent shall have been issued to the applicants, thus quieting the title, the parties claiming such lien will be in a much better condition to enforce it than if the question of titles was undermined. No. 51. 1. A foreign corporation succeeds to all the rights of the pat entees. 2. Where a patent issued erroneously describing the premises claimed and subsequent application is made by other persons for same tract, the patentees, or their successors in interest, are entitled to file adverse claim. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., October 8, 1875. Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado. GENTLEMEN: This office is in receipt of a letter from William W. Ramage, Esq., agent and manager for the assignees of J. W. Haseltine et al., patentees of the Searle Lode, wherein he states that you refused to allow him to file a plea against the application of Joshua S. Reynolds, for patent for the Aduddell Lode, on the ground that said assignees were a foreign corporation. Foreign corporation claiming under patent. To prevent misunderstanding on this important question, I have to call your attention to section 2326 of the Revised Statutes, wherein the following language is used: "Nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the alienation of the title conveyed by a patent for a mining claim to any person whatever." A foreign corporation purchasing a patent issued to citizens of the United States, takes all the rights and is entitled to all the privileges that would have accrued to the original patentees, had they retained their interest in the mine. You will therefore treat the agent of such foreign corporation precisely as you would the patentee, so far as rights are concerned under the United States patent. Ordinarily, a few words of explanation will convince the holder under a patent, that a plea or adverse claim is unnecessary where a survey for another lode crosses his own premises, as the ground in conflict is already patented to him, and will be excepted from the patent issued under the subsequent application. Should the patentee persist in filing an adverse claim, you will receive it, and give him the usual notice in writing that the same is rejected on the grounds above recited, when he may appeal to this office if he desires to do so. Erroneous patent. But this is not an ordinary case. From the letters of Mr. Ramage, it appears that the premises conveyed by the patent to the Searle Lode are incorrectly described therein; that the land conveyed lies considerably east of that claimed by his assignors. It becomes his duty, therefore, to protest against the issuance of a patent on a conflicting survey until a second patent is issued for the Searle Lode, correctly describing the claim. You are therefore directed to receive such plea or protest as Mr. Ramage may desire to file in the Aduddell application, and transmit the same to this office, with the other papers in the case, after the entry has been perfected as usual. Mr. Ramage has been furnished with a copy of this letter. Very respectfully, S. S. BURDETT, Commissioner. No. 52. Entry allowed, pending litigation in the courts, canceled. GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., Oct. 23, 1873. Register and Receiver, Central City, Colorado. GENTLEMEN: It appears from your letter of the twentythird of July last, that on the sixth of November, 1872, D. E. Dulaney filed with you an application for patent for six hundred and seventy-five feet of the Hidden Treasure Lode, Griffith Mining District, Clear Creek county, Colorado. On the thirteenth of December, 1872, L D. C. Gaskill et al. filed with you an application for patent for nine hundred linear feet of the Saco lode, situated in the same district. On the fourth of January, 1873, L. D. C. Gaskill et al., the applicants for patent for the Saco lode, filed with you an adverse claim against the application of Mr. Dulaney, for patent for the Hidden Treasure lode, alleging a conflict between the said applications for patent. The applicants for patent for the Saco lode commenced. suit against the applicant for patent for the Hidden Treasure lode within the prescribed time after said adverse claim was filed, and said suit was still pending and undetermined. The premises described in said applications for patent being in litigation, a suit having been instituted upon an adverse claim filed by one applicant against the other, no entry should have been permitted by either party, until a final decree of the court had been rendered in the matter. The entry of the Saco lode, made March 3, 1873, has this day been canceled. You will inform all parties in interest, and acknowledge the receipt hereof. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, WILLIS DRUMMOND, Commissioner. No. 53. Proceeding upon adverse claims, where republication of notice of application for patent is necessary. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, GENERAL LAND OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C., March 29, 1880. Register and Receiver, Leadville, Colorado. GENTLEMEN: In reply to Register's letter of thirteenth instant, you are advised that: Adverse claim should be again filed during second publication. When for any reason the publication of notice of application for patent to mineral claims is defective, and republication is made, the adverse claims which were filed during the first publication should be again filed within the second publication, and no fees for such second filing should be exacted. The adverse claimants should be promptly notified when the first publication is found defective and ceases, and the same papers constituting their original adverse claim, with any necessary corrections, to specify the particular proceeding to which they relate, would be sufficient. Certificate that suit had been commenced will operate as a stay of proceedings. Should the adverse claimant have commenced suit under his first filing, the certificate of the clerk of court, under seal, to that effect, furnished when the last filing of adverse claim is made, as aforesaid, or within thirty days thereafter, will be considered as authority for the stay of proceedings contemplated in second 2326 United States Revised Statutes. No fee upon filing of protest. There is no legal fee for protests filed after the expiration of publication, or within such period. The party filing a protest, not intended to be followed by suit, or which is filed after the period of publication, is not regarded or treated as a party in interest, and is not entitled to the right of appeal-he is merely amicus curiæ, and seeks to suggest some failure on the part of the claimant to comply with the law, or some defect in the record, of which the government should take notice. You should always receive such protests, but are not required to give the party filing them any time for appeal or argument. If they suggest any defect, of course you will require it to be remedied before allowing entry, in the same manner as if you had discovered the defect without the suggestion in the protest. In all cases such protests must accompany the record to this office. Adverse claims filed subsequent to expiration of the period of publication can be considered only as protests, and should be received as such, without fees. No fees must be charged or received for anything but the adverse claim, filed and acted upon as such. Very respectfully, J. A. WILLIAMSON, Commissioner. |