Colorado § 34-43-115 - Relocation by owner - conditions.

§ 34-43-115. Relocation by owner - conditions.

If at any time the locator of any mining claim, or his assigns, apprehends that his original certificate is defective, erroneous, or that the requirements of the law had not been complied with before filing, or is desirous of changing his surface boundaries, or of taking in any part of an overlapping claim which has been abandoned, or in case the original certificate was made prior to June 1, 1874, and he is desirous of securing the benefits of this article, such locator, or his assigns, may file an additional certificate, subject to the provisions of this article, if his relocation does not interfere with the existing rights of others at the time of such relocation. No such relocation or other record thereof shall preclude the claimant from proving any such title as he may hold under previous location.

Source: L. 1874: p. 188, § 13. G.L. § 1823. G.S. § 2409. R.S. 08: § 4210. C.L. § 3292. CSA: C. 110, § 182. CRS 53: § 92-22-15. C.R.S. 1963: § 92-22-15.

ANNOTATION

I. General Consideration.

II. Relocation of Claim.

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.

This section embraces all classes of mining claims, and, therefore, those known as placers. Kirk v. Meldrum, 28 Colo. 453, 65 P. 633 (1901).

Section provides for correction of errors and defects occurring in original certificate. The plain purport and effect of the first clause of this section is to enable the miner, who in good faith has gone upon the public domain and expended time and money in performing the substantial acts required to locate a mining claim, but through inadvertence or ignorance has failed to comply with the requirements of § 34-43-103 in describing his claim, to cure such error at any time by an amendment correcting the defective description, and, thus, perfect his record, as of the date of his original certificate. Nylund v. Ward, 67 Colo. 108, 187 P. 514 (1919).

This section qualifies declaration in § 34-43-104 that defective certificate is void. Frisholm v. Fitzgerald, 25 Colo. 290, 53 P. 1109 (1898); Nylund v. Ward, 67 Colo. 108, 187 P. 514 (1919).

Although void location cannot be cured and made valid by filling additional or amended location certificate. Sullivan v. Sharp, 33 Colo. 346, 80 P. 1054 (1905); Sackville v. Mann, 110 Colo. 523, 135 P.2d 1014 (1943).

Additional location certificate must be based upon original and relate back to first location. Strepey v. Stark, 7 Colo. 614, 5 P. 111 (1884); Hallack v. Traver, 23 Colo. 14, 46 P. 110 (1896); Sackville v. Mann, 110 Colo. 523, 135 P.2d 1014 (1943).

Filing of new location certificate, and sinking of new shaft, is not of itself abandonment of original location. King Solomon Tunnel & Dev. Co. v. Mary Verna Mining Co., 22 Colo. App. 528, 127 P. 129 (1912).

In filing amended location certificates defendant is not required to discover new vein or lode, sink any additional shaft, or make any new discoveries of mineral thereon. Becker v. Pugh, 17 Colo. 243, 29 P. 173 (1892); King Solomon Tunnel & Dev. Co. v. Mary Verna Mining Co., 22 Colo. App. 528, 127 P. 129 (1912).

Purpose for which certificate is filed need not be stated. This section provides that additional location certificates may be filed for certain purposes; it does not require that such purposes should be expressed in the certificate. Johnson v. Young, 18 Colo. 625, 34 P. 173 (1893).

II. RELOCATION OF CLAIM.

This section authorizes change of boundaries and taking in of territory not included within original location. Nylund v. Ward, 67 Colo. 108, 187 P. 514 (1919).

Junior locator may amend to include abandoned claim. Upon failure to perform the annual development work, the territory becomes abandoned in the sense that it is subject to location after such failure and before resumption of work thereon, in the same manner as other unappropriated domain, and is subject to be taken by the owners of a junior location by the filing of an additional certificate under this section. Johnson v. Young, 18 Colo. 625, 34 P. 173 (1893); Oscamp v. Crystal River Mining Co., 58 F. 293 (8th Cir. 1893).

Limited applicability. The proviso is only applicable to a change of boundaries and relocation that should take in territory not before included within the claim: This would protect the rights of the locator without prejudicing any of the interests that third parties may have rightly acquired. McEvoy v. Hyman, 25 F. 596 (D. Colo. 1885); Nylund v. Ward, 67 Colo. 108, 187 P. 514 (1919).

Amended certificates may not include other territory and injure other intervening rights. Washington Gold Mining & Milling Co. v. O'Laughlin, 46 Colo. 503, 105 P. 1092 (1909).