Opinion
No. 78-170
Decided March 22, 1979. Rehearing denied April 26, 1979. Certiorari denied June 18, 1979.
Defendant appealed from a judgment for plaintiffs in an action to quiet title in twenty-seven mining claims.
Affirmed
1. MINES AND MINERALS — Map Filing Requirement — Timeliness — Purpose — Notice — Establishment of Priorities. In order to ensure notice of claims and to establish priorities in the location of a mining claim, the locator must file a map with the location certificate within a specific period after effecting the location.
2. Level of Compliance Required — Locate a Claim — Location Certificate — Contents. Strict compliance with location certificate requirements is not required to locate a mining claim; thus, the location certificate need not contain a legal description; it need only contain sufficient information to enable a reasonably intelligent person to locate the claim on the ground by referring to the location certificate and the marked boundaries.
3. Location of Contiguous Claims — One Map — Filed — Each Group — Location Certificates — Sufficient. Where a locator seeks to locate several contiguous mining claims, filing one map showing all the claims along with each group of location certificates makes the location of the claim on the ground readily and accurately ascertainable so long as a reasonably intelligent person can locate the claim by reference to the location certificate and the map, and thus, such a filing meets the location certificate requirements for all the claims included on the map.
4. Federal Requirement — Assessment Work — Necessary to Maintain Claim — — Purpose. The Federal statute governing mining claims requires at least $100 worth of improvements each year on each claim; this assessment work is that which is performed in good faith to develop the claim and directly facilitates the extraction of minerals from it; and, failure to perform the minimum assessment work opens the land for relocation.
5. Satisfactory Work — Question of Fact — Work Token in Nature — Insufficient. Whether or not work in a mining claim satisfies the federal assessment work requirement is a question of fact, and a finding that work performed on a mining claim is token in nature and insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the federal statute opens the claim for relocation.
Appeal from the District Court of the County of Park, Honorable Howard E. Purdy, Judge.
Rush Rush, Robert P. Rush, for plaintiff-appellee.
Woodrow, Roushar, Weaver Withers, Frank J. Woodrow, for defendants-appellants.
Plaintiff brought this action to quiet title in 27 mining claims known as Bronco Claims one through 27. Defendants counterclaimed, asserting priority in their claims, which were overlapped by plaintiff's claims. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. We affirm.
Defendants trace their priority to 1955 when defendant Amrine located ten unpatented mining claims known as Lady Elk one through ten. Plaintiff later located his 27 Bronco Claims over the Lady Elk Claims, asserting that the Lady Elk Claims were open for relocation by virtue of defendants' failure to perform the required assessment work. Plaintiff located his claims by marking the boundaries, posting notice, and filing location certificates. As to Bronco Claims one through eight, one map showing the eight claims was attached to and filed with the eight certificates. Each of the location certificates for Bronco Claims nine through 27 referred to a second map showing all 27 of the Bronco Claims; this map was filed of record along with the second group of certificates. The first map, which was made a part of the record, was on a scale of one inch equals 1,156 feet and the measurements were tied to a permanent monument depicted as "Dry Lake shown on Topo Map."
I.
Defendants contend that plaintiff's attempt at locating the claims was invalid because it was not in strict compliance with § 34-43-106, C.R.S. 1973, and, in this regard, they point out that plaintiff did not attach a separate map to each location certificate. We hold that substantial compliance with the statute is sufficient to locate a claim, and we find that plaintiff's filing met this test of substantial compliance.
Section 34-43-106(1), C.R.S. 1973, requires that before filing a location certificate, the locator must first perform certain "discovery work" including sinking a discovery shaft, posting notice, and marking boundaries. Section 34-43-106(2), C.R.S. 1973, allows the locator, in lieu of sinking a discovery shaft, to file a map of the claim in the office of the county clerk and recorder. The statute states that the map of the claim shall be attached to the location certificate, on a scale of approximately one inch equals 500 feet, and showing, among other things, the claim pattern with reference to the nearest section or quarter section corner of the public land survey, if the land is surveyed, or to a permanent monument if the land is unsurveyed. The statute does not speak to the situation where the locator at the same time files several location certificates to adjacent claims.
Thus, the initial question here is whether strict compliance is contemplated by the statute so that a copy of the map showing all of the claims must be attached to each of the location certificates. And, if strict compliance is not required, then the issue arises as to what standard should be applied in determining if a locator's efforts satisfy the requirements of the statute.
[1-3] The purpose of requiring the filing of a map with a location certificate within a specific period is to ensure notice of claims and to establish priorities; however, strict compliance with location certificate requirements is not required to locate a claim. Bair v. Anderson, 98 Colo. 532, 58 P.2d 484 (1936). The location certificate need not contain a legal description as defendants contend. Instead the location certificate need only contain sufficient information to enable a reasonably intelligent person to locate the claim on the ground by referring to the location certificate and the marked boundaries. See Londonderry Mining Co. v. United Gold Mines Co., 38 Colo. 480, 88 P. 455 (1907). 1 American Law of Mining § 5.74. Similarly, § 34-43-106(2)(c), C.R.S. 1973, requires that the map show the claim pattern so that "the location of the claim on the ground can be readily and accurately ascertained." We therefore hold that where a locator seeks to locate several contiguous claims, the requirements of § 34-43-106(2), C.R.S. 1973, are met by filing one map showing all the claims along with each group of location certificates so long as a reasonably intelligent person can locate the claim by reference to the location certificate and the map.
Furthermore, we agree with the trial court's finding that plaintiff's filing of the maps and location certificates was sufficient compliance to accomplish the purpose of the statute. Defendants' objection that the map was not on a scale of one inch equals 500 feet is without merit. The scale need only be "approximate," and in light of the court's finding that the maps gave sufficient notice of the location of the claims, the variance from the statutory provision is not significant. We also disagree with defendants' contention that plaintiff's reference to the "Dry Lake shown on Topo Map" is inadequate. There was no evidence presented at trial that any public reference points could be located. Therefore plaintiff's designation of a permanent monument is an appropriate method of satisfying the description requirements.
II.
Defendants next argue that the trial court erred in finding that they had failed to perform the necessary assessment work so that the Lady Elk Claims were open for relocation by plaintiff. We find no error.
[4] The federal statute, 30 U.S.C. § 28, requires at least $100 worth of improvements each year on each claim. Failure to perform the minimum assessment work opens the land for relocation. Assessment work is that which is performed in good faith to develop the claim and directly facilitate the extraction of minerals from it. 2 American Law of Mining § 7.6. Whether or not work on the claims satisfies these requirements is a question of fact. See Doherty v. Morris, 17 Colo. 105, 28 P. 85 (1891); Lancaster v. Coale, 27 Colo. App. 495, 150 P. 821 (1915).
[5] After hearing conflicting evidence as to the work performed by defendants, the court here determined that the work was token in nature and insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the statute. The credibility of witnesses, the sufficiency and weight of the evidence, and the findings and conclusions to be drawn therefrom are within the province of the trial court. These findings of the trial court are not clearly erroneous and therefore cannot be disturbed on review. Broncucia v. McGee, 173 Colo. 22, 475 P.2d 336 (1970).
Judgment affirmed.
JUDGE BERMAN and JUDGE VAN CISE concur.