No specific time is designated by the stat utes within which the location must be com pleted; but if one begin a location and then depart he cannot return and complete the location so as to hold it against one who, during such absence, has made a complete location; Newbill v. Thurston, 65 Cal. 419, 4 Pac. 409. A location is dependent, primari ly, upon what is found in the discovery shaft, the discovery of ore elsewhere being, as a rule, unavailing; Van Zandt V. Min. Co., 8 Fed. 725; but see Harrington v. Cham bers, 3 Utah 94, 1 Pac. 362; Armstrong v. Lower, 6 Colo. 581; Southern Cross Gold & Silver Min. Co. v. Min. Co., 15 Nev. 383, where evidence was admitted in proof of discovery to show the existence of a vein other than at the location point. The work leading up to the discovery need not have been done by the locator, provided the ex istence of the vein was known to him at the time of location; Wenner v. McNulty, 7 Mont. 30, 14 Pac. 643.
It is not piiority of discovery, but priority of compliance with the various requirements of the law that gives the right to • the mine; Gleeson v. Mining Co., 13 Nev. 455. As to the proper manner of staking out a claim so as to conform to the lode or vein, see Flag staff Silver Min. Co. v. Tarbet, 98 U. S. 463, 25 L. Ed. 253. See also Armstrong v. Lower, 6 Colo. 393; Gleeson v. Mining Co., 13 Nev. 442. Laws and regulations for the location, development, and working of mines may be made by the states and by the miners them selves ; R. S. §§ 2319-2324.
As to the extent of ground open to loca tion and the method of staking It off, see R. S. § 2320, and for the provisions relating to placer locations, see R. S. §§ 2329, 2333. See U. S. v. Mining Co., 128 U. S. 673, 9 Sup. Ct. 195, 32 L. Ed. 571; Copp's Min. Lands 52.
The term "placer claim," as used in R.
S. § 2329, means "ground between defined boundaries which contains mineral in its earth, sand, or gravel; ground that includes valuable deposits not in place, that is, not fixed in rock, but which are 'in a loose state, and may, in most cases, be collected by wash ing or amalgamation, without milling." II. S. v. Mining Co., 128 11. S. 679, 9 Sup. Ct. 195, 32 L. Ed. 571.
It is incumbent upon one in possession of a placer claim whereon is a vein or lode, to state that fact in his application for a pat ent, or the patent will not carry such vein or lode. If discovered subsequent to the issu ance of the patent, however, such vein or lode is covered by the placer patent; R. S. § 2333 ; Clary v. Hazlitt, 67 Cal. 286, 7 Pac.
701; Reynolds v. Mining Co., 116 U. S. 687, 6 Sup. Ct. 601, 29 L. Ed. 774.
The statutory requirements concerning the description of the location, R. S. §§ 2318, 2324, are: (1) that the location shall be along the vein or lode ; (2) that it shall be distinctly marked on the ground so that the boundaries can be readily traced and that such description shall be by reference to some permanent object for the identification of the claim; (3) that all the lines shall be parallel—the last requirement being di rectory only, the object being to prevent a party from claiming more width of vein out side his surface lines than within them; Doe v. Sanger, 83 Cal. 203, 23 Pac. 365. All
other details of locatiOn are governed by the rules and regulations of miners and state laws; R. S. § 2324.
Although the federal laws do not require the posting of any notice of location on the claim, but only require the recording of such notice in the mining district, yet the posting of a notice is almost universally required by the miners' regulations, and by state laws ; Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U. S. 537, 5 Sup. Ct. 565, 28 L. Ed. 1116 ; Johnson v. Parks, 10 Cal. 446; Cheesman v. Shreeve, 40 Fed. 787. See LODE ; VEIN.
Re-location. A mining claim is subject to re-location where the owner has failed to comply with the statutory requirements, or has failed to observe local rules; R. S. § 2324; Morgan v. Tillottson, 73 Cal. 520, 15 Pac. 88 ; Golden Fleece Gold & Silver Min. Co. v. Min. Co., 12 Nev. 312. But the forfei ture must have actually occurred before re location, otherwise the re-location is invalid and the re-locator a trespasser;' Jupiter Min ing Co. v. Mining Co., 11 Fed. 680 ; Lock hart v. Rollins, 2 Idaho (Hasb.) 540, 21 Pac. 413; Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279, 26 L. Ed. 735. A re-location is made in the same manner and carries the same rights as orig inal location ; Armstrong v. Lower, 6 Colo. 393; Wills v. Blain, 5 N. M. 238, 20 Pac. 798. Annual work. It is provided by federal statute that during each year, after location and until a patent issues, there shall be per formed on the claim not less than $100 worth of labor on improvements ; It. S. § 2324; and this provision is applicable alike to placer claims and to lode claims ; Carney v. Min. Co., 65 Cal. 40, 2 Pac. 734. The work may be done anywhere upon the surface of the claim within its surface lines or below the surface within the lines extended verti cally downward, but it must be done as a necessary means of extracting ore ; Mt. Dia blo Mill & Min. Co. v. Callison, 5 Sawy. 439, Fed. Cas. No. 9,886 ; Remmington v. Bandit, 6 Mont. 138, 9 Pac. 819. See also Jackson V. Roby, 109 U. S. 440, 3 Sup. Ct. 301, 27 L. Ed. 990. By act of February 11, 1875, U. S. R. S. 1 Supp. 62, it is provided that where a tunnel has been run for the purpose of de veloping a lode, the tunnel shall be consid ered as expended on said lode, and that it shall not be required to perform work on the surface of the lode as required in R. S. § 2324. See Chambers v. Harrington, 111 U. S. 355, 4 Sup. Ct. 428, 28 L. Ed. 452.