Colorado § 34-43-107 - Marking boundaries.

§ 34-43-107. Marking boundaries.

Such surface boundaries shall be marked by six substantial posts hewed or marked on the sides which are in toward the claim, and sunk in the ground, one at each corner and one at the center of each side line. Where it is practically impossible on account of bedrock to sink such posts, they may be placed in a pile of stones, and where in marking the surface boundaries of a claim any one or more of such posts fall by right upon precipitous ground where the proper placing of it is impractical or dangerous to life or limb, it shall be legal and valid to place any such post at the nearest practicable point, suitably marked, to designate the proper place.

Source: L. 1874: p. 187, § 6. L. 1876: p. 94, § 1. G.L. § 1816. G.S. § 2402. R.S. 08: § 4198. C.L. § 3284. CSA: C. 110, § 174. CRS 53: § 92-22-7. C.R.S. 1963: § 92-22-7.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Examining Titles of Unpatented Lode Mining Claims", see 27 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 397 (1955).

Purpose of marking boundaries. Marking the boundaries of surface claim operates to determine the right of the claimant as between himself and the general government and to notify third persons of his rights and it prevents fraud by swinging or floating. Pollard v. Shively, 5 Colo. 309 (1880).

The provisions of this section are so far imperative as to require that the boundaries may be readily traced by the posts. The notice which this section contemplates and seeks by and through them, may not be substantially impaired by any omission. Pollard v. Shively, 5 Colo. 309 (1880).

Where monuments are relied upon to control courses and distances, they must be found as called for. Pollard v. Shively, 5 Colo. 309 (1880).

Requirements that side posts be placed in center of side lines is satisfied if they are substantially at the center: A discrepancy of 150 feet cannot be said to be substantially in the center. Pollard v. Shively, 5 Colo. 309 (1880).

Cutting initial into solid rock at corner of mining claim is not equivalent to sinking of post in the ground, or, where that cannot be done by reason of bed rock, planting one in a pile of stones. Croesus Mining, Milling & Smelting Co. v. Colo. Land & Mineral Co., 19 F. 78 (D. Colo. 1884); Taylor v. Parenteau, 23 Colo. 368, 48 P. 505 (1897).

But stump, hewed and marked, may be adopted as location post if the descriptive survey gives both its real and assigned character. Pollard v. Shively, 5 Colo. 309 (1880).

Provisions for placing post at "nearest practical point" cannot be invoked where setting stake at true corner is merely inconvenient. Croesus Mining, Milling & Reduction Co. v. Colo. Land & Mineral Co., 19 F. 78 (D. Colo. 1884); Taylor v. Parenteau, 23 Colo. 368, 48 P. 505 (1897); Beals v. Cone, 27 Colo. 473, 62 P. 948 (1900).

Hence, fact that proper place falls upon railroad embankment 12 or 15 feet in height will not excuse failure to place post at proper place unless it would have been in such close proximity to the rails as to be interfered with by passage of trains. Beals v. Cone, 27 Colo. 473, 62 P. 948 (1900).

Applied in Couch v. Clifton, 626 P.2d 731 (Colo. App. 1981).