Colorado § 34-43-112 - Placer claim certificate - recording - manner of locating.

§ 34-43-112. Placer claim certificate - recording - manner of locating.

(1) The discoverer of a placer claim, within thirty days from the date of discovery, shall record his claim in the office of the recorder of the county in which said claim is situated by a location certificate, which shall contain:

(a) The name of the claim, designating it as a placer claim;

(b) The name of the locator;

(c) The date of location;

(d) The number of acres or feet claimed; and

(e) A description of the claim by such reference to natural objects or permanent monuments as shall identify the claim.

(2) Before filing such location certificate the discoverer shall locate his claim:

(a) By posting upon such claim a plain sign or notice containing the name of the claim, the name of the locator, the date of discovery, and the number of acres or feet claimed;

(b) By marking the surface boundaries with substantial posts, sunk into the ground, one at each angle of the claim.

Source: L. 1879: p. 140, § 1. G.S. § 2385. R.S. 08: § 4205. C.L. § 3289. CSA: C. 110, § 179. CRS 53: § 92-22-12. C.R.S. 1963: § 92-22-12.

ANNOTATION

Intention of this section is to impart notice to third parties. And whether or not there is a reference to such a natural object or permanent monument as to satisfy the provisions of the law must necessarily be a question of fact. If by any reasonable construction the language employed in a description will impart notice to subsequent locators, it is sufficient. McNulty v. Kelly, 141 Colo. 23, 346 P.2d 585 (1959).

Location of placer claims is governed first by federal law in 30 U.S.C. §§ 28 and 35; second by this statute, if not in conflict with the federal law; and third by court decisions interpreting the statutes. McNulty v. Kelly, 141 Colo. 23, 346 P.2d 585 (1959).

Section applies to all placer claims, whether located on surveyed or unsurveyed government lands. Saxton v. Perry, 47 Colo. 263, 107 P. 281 (1910).

Colorado law does not permit location without marking the boundaries of the claim on the ground. Roberts v. Morton, 549 F.2d 158 (10th Cir. 1976).

Locator of placer in public domain must mark boundaries by stake at each angle, although the location be made upon surveyed lands, and according to the subdivisions of a public survey. Saxton v. Perry, 47 Colo. 263, 107 P. 281 (1910).

Conformity of the boundaries of placer claim with lines of government survey, by description of a placer location as covering recognized units or subdivisions of such survey, is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of this section. Clark v. Pueblo Quarries, 103 Colo. 402, 86 P.2d 602 (1939).

Placer mining location certificate may contain description of land by section numbers not based upon governmental survey, the only requirement being that a description be used that will lead a reasonable man to the claim location. McNulty v. Kelly, 141 Colo. 23, 346 P.2d 585 (1959).

Constructive possession. In an attempted location of a mining claim in the public domain, if one of the essential requirements of this section is not observed, e.g., the marking of the boundaries, constructive possession is not conferred upon the locator: Neither do improvements made under such invalid location. Saxton v. Perry, 47 Colo. 263, 107 P. 281 (1910).

Certificate is not required to show precise boundaries of claim as marked on ground, but it is sufficient if it contains directions which, taken in connection with such boundaries, will enable a person of reasonable intelligence to find the claim and trace the lines. McNulty v. Kelly, 141 Colo. 23, 346 P.2d 585 (1959).

Liberal construction should be given to location certificate, and the same should not be declared insufficient unless it clearly fails to identify a claim. McNulty v. Kelly, 141 Colo. 23, 346 P.2d 585 (1959).

It is question of fact whether location certificate adequately describes intended claim. McNulty v. Kelly, 141 Colo. 23, 346 P.2d 585 (1959).

There is nothing in this section which requires that claim stakes or posts be made of wood. McNulty v. Kelly, 141 Colo. 23, 346 P.2d 585 (1959).

Substantial or colorable compliance with state location requirements has been enforced even in controversies between the government and private claimants. Roberts v. Morton, 549 F.2d 158 (10th Cir. 1976).

State law location requirements applied in contest proceedings initiated by United States. Roberts v. Morton, 549 F.2d 158 (10th Cir. 1976).