Colorado § 34-43-103 - Lode claim certificate - contents.

§ 34-43-103. Lode claim certificate - contents.

(1) The discoverer of a lode, within three months from the date of discovery, shall record his claim in the office of the recorder of the county in which such lode is situated, by a location certificate, which shall contain:

(a) The name of the lode;

(b) The name of the locator;

(c) The date of location;

(d) The number of feet in length claimed on each side of the center of the discovery shaft;

(e) The general course of the lode as near as may be.

Source: L. 1874: p. 186, § 3. G.L. § 1813. G.S. § 2399. R.S. 08: § 4194. C.L. § 3280. CSA: C. 110, § 170. CRS 53: § 92-22-3. C.R.S. 1963: § 92-22-3.

ANNOTATION

I. General Consideration.

II. The Certificate.

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.

Law reviews. For article, "Pick and Shovel Mining Laws in an Atomic Age: A Case for Reform", see 27 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 375 (1955).

Object of this section is not merely to fix the amount of surface territory allowed the locator for working purposes, but also to protect him in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of his lode and all other veins, lodes, or ledges, the tops or apexes of which are within his surface boundaries. Armstrong v. Lower, 6 Colo. 393 (1882).

Precedence according to dates of discovery where section disregarded. Where a court finds that each of two contesting parties has disregarded this section, the court may allow precedence according to the dates of discovery. Faxon v. Barnard, 4 F. 702 (D. Colo. 1890).

Where relative priority of conflicting mining locations depends upon exact hour of the day of filing of location certificates, fractions of days are taken into account. Wash. Gold Mining & Milling Co. v. O'Laughlin, 46 Colo. 503, 105 P. 1092 (1909).

Subsequent locator has burden of proving lode does not extend to another claim. Where another, by a subsequent and conflicting location, undertakes to hold a portion of the prior claim on the ground that the lode thereof does not extend to the conflicting premises, the burden of proving such fact is upon the subsequent locator. Armstrong v. Lower, 6 Colo. 393 (1882).

Courts usually fix claim by natural object. Nowhere in express language is there a requirement that the claim is to be tied to a natural object, yet the courts have generally held that this is necessary in order to give the proper notice of location. Drummond v. Long, 9 Colo. 538, 13 P. 543 (1886); Nylund v. Ward, 67 Colo. 108, 187 P. 514 (1919).

Tree as permissible monument by which to describe claim. Quimby v. Boyd, 8 Colo. 194, 6 P. 462 (1884).

Location certificates are admissible in evidence to show existence of location notice. Coleman v. Davis, 13 Colo. 98, 21 P. 1018 (1889).

II. THE CERTIFICATE.

Location certificate fixes boundaries of claim, and subsequent locators are affected thereby in spite of errors in the notice posted at the discovery shaft. Courtney v. Ward, 67 Colo. 105, 187 P. 517 (1919).

Certificate under this section, when filed, takes place of notice on ground under § 34-43-106, and after it is filed there is no necessity for posting, or keeping, at the point of a new and valid discovery, if the first alleged discovery is void, of a notice of what particular ground is claimed. Treasury Tunnel, Mining & Reduction Co. v. Boss, 32 Colo. 27, 74 P. 888, 105 Am. St. R. 60 (1903).

Certificate given to proper official is thereafter constructive notice although never filed. If the instrument which this section requires to be recorded in a public office is lodged with the proper officer, and the person so depositing it does all that the law requires of him as conditions precedent to the right to have it recorded, or if these conditions are, and can be, waived by the officer, it is constructive notice to all those who thereafter deal with the property, even if the recorder neglects to record it. Shepard v. Murphy, 26 Colo. 350, 58 P. 588 (1899).

Certificate not necessarily invalid because not filed within prescribed time. Although this section requires the certificate to be filed within three months to secure the claim from the date of discovery against intervening claimants seeking to locate the same ground, no reason is perceived for saying that the certificate shall be invalid if not filed within the time fixed by law. Faxon v. Barnard, 4 F. 702 (D. Colo. 1880).

Location of the lode was not complete so as to remove it from the public domain. Although the claim was located in 1876, the certificate of location removing the lode from the public domain was not recorded until 1880, after the county's declarations of a public road traversing the lode and public use of the road established acceptance of a federal right-of-way grant. Therefore, the road segment on the lode is a public road. Camp Bird Colo., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs of Ouray, 215 P.3d 1277 (Colo. App. 2009).

Permissibility of inferring fact of discovery from certificate. Cheesman v. Hart, 42 F. 98 (D. Colo. 1890).

Certificate cannot be filed on land not open to location. Schwarz v. Ulmer, 149 Colo. 601, 370 P. 2d 889 (1962).