Cole v. Ralph
1920 U.S. LEXIS 1596, 252 U.S. 286, 40 S. Ct. 321 (1920)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 2332 of the Revised Statutes, which allows evidence of holding and working a mining claim for the period of the state's statute of limitations to establish a right to a patent, does not eliminate the fundamental requirement of a mineral discovery. Discovery remains an essential prerequisite to the validity of any mining claim.
Facts:
- Joseph Ralph was the claimant for three lode mining locations, Salt Lake No. 3, Midas, and Evening Star, which were originally located in 1897 and 1907.
- Ralph's predecessors in interest had held and worked these lode claims for a period exceeding the two-year Nevada statute of limitations for mining claims.
- In September 1913, the plaintiffs (predecessors to Cole et al.) located two placer claims, the Guy Davis and Homestake, on ground that overlapped with Ralph's lode claims.
- The placer claimants made adequate discoveries of placer gold within the boundaries of their claims.
- There was conflicting evidence regarding whether a discovery of a valuable lode or vein had ever been made on the lode claims prior to the establishment of the placer claims in 1913.
- The lode claimant had buildings on one of the claims, which were used for operations on other claims, and a watchman was present on the property.
- The placer claimants entered the land openly, made their discoveries, and began mining operations without meeting any resistance or objection from the lode claimant's watchman.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph Ralph applied for a patent for his lode claims at the local land office.
- The placer claimants filed adverse claims against Ralph's application in the land office.
- The placer claimants, as plaintiffs, filed two adverse suits in a Nevada state court to adjudicate the conflicting claims.
- Ralph, as the defendant, removed the cases to the United States District Court based on diversity of citizenship.
- At a jury trial in the District Court, the jury returned general verdicts for the plaintiffs (placer claimants) and special verdicts finding no lode discovery had been made before the placer locations.
- The District Court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
- Ralph, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment and ordered a new trial.
- The placer claimants, as petitioners, were granted a writ of certiorari by the United States Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does § 2332 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that holding and working a claim for a period equal to the statute of limitations is sufficient to establish a right to a patent, serve as a substitute for the requirement of a mineral discovery to validate a lode mining claim against a subsequent, conflicting placer claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Van Devanter
No. Section 2332 of the Revised Statutes does not eliminate the requirement of a mineral discovery. The statute is a remedial provision intended to relieve claimants from the burden of proving the formal acts of location, recording, and transfer, especially for older claims where records may be lost. It does not override the substantive and fundamental requirements of the mineral land laws, most notably the prerequisite of a discovery of a valuable mineral deposit. The statute's language, 'have held and worked their claims,' presupposes a discovery, because to 'work' a mining claim means to develop or extract ore from an already discovered body, not merely to prospect. To allow possession and work to substitute for discovery would undermine the entire purpose of the mining laws, potentially allowing non-mineral land to be patented as a mining claim.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the mineral discovery as the foundational act upon which all rights in a mining claim depend, clarifying that it cannot be waived or substituted by principles of adverse possession under § 2332. The Court establishes that § 2332 functions as a rule of evidence concerning the formalities of location, not as a means to cure a defect in the claim's substantive validity. This holding prevents claimants from using mere occupation and minimal labor to acquire title to public lands that may not contain valuable minerals, thereby preserving the integrity of the General Mining Act of 1872. The ruling ensures that a junior locator with a valid discovery will prevail over a senior locator who has occupied land for years without ever making a discovery.
Unlock the full brief for Cole v. Ralph