May 10, 1872 Act conformity of placer claims to the public land surveys.

[Assembler]

Topic May 10, 1872 Act:

Section 2331 of the Revised Statutes(30 U.S.C. 35)provides that all placer-mining claims located after May 10, 1872, shall conform as nearly as practicable with the United States system of public land surveys and the rectangular subdivisions of such surveys, and such locations shall not include more than 20 acres for each individual claimant.
Conformity of placer claims to the public land surveys.
(a) All placer-mining claims located after May 10, 1872, shall conform as near as practicable with the United States system of public-land surveys and the rectangular subdivisions of such Surveys, whether the locations are upon Surveyed or unsurveyed lands.
(b) Conformity to the public-land Surveys and the rectangular subdivisions thereof will not be required where compliance with such requirement would necessitate the placing of the lines there of upon other prior located claims or where the claim is surrounded by prior locations.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Bejay]

I believe you are reading more into this than is correct. Best I can do is what I have already posted. Good Luck

Bejay

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[Assembler]

Hello
Just sharing for others to read is all. There is a good reason for quoting word for word so others can read for there own use thereof.

 

[Assembler]

Plats:

The approval of a mineral survey is final, no acceptance being required as in the case of the public land subdivisional surveys. When approved, the plat will be reproduced and the returns of the survey will be distributed in accordance with existing regulations.

A big difference between this "Mineral survey" and the "Public land subdivisional survey".

 

[Rail Dawg]

It seems the points have been made?

 

[Assembler]

Newer "CFR Code"

It seems the points have been made?

Yes some of the big differences have been made with different types of "Surveys" as the thread title points out. Just quoting a few brief words to help clear up a few things.

The following is from much newer "CFR Code":

Title Evidence
Each patent application must be accompanied by either a certificate of title or an abstract of title. The selected documents must be certified by the legal custodian of records of locations and transfers of mining claims (generally the county recorder) or by an abstractor of title. The certificate of title or certificate to an abstract of title must be by a person, association, or corporation authorized by the state laws to execute such a certificate and acceptable to the BLM. 43 CFR 3862.1-3(a). Most claimants find the most suitable method is to use the BLM (Certificate of title from and have it certified by a local abstractor of title. One important reason that abstractors of title find this form 4-1246 acceptable is that the form specifically limits their liability to $100. This is important because most abstractors of title are inexperienced in researching mining titles and are uncomfortable about certifying them. If an abstract of title is not submitted, the regulations (43 CFR 3862.1-3(b)) specifically require that the “certificate of title on mining claims, form 4-1246” be used.
Certificate to Abstract of Title
A certificate to an abstract of title must state that the abstract is full, true and complete abstract of the location notices, all amendments, and all deeds, instruments, or actions of record purporting to conbey or to affect the title to each claim. 43 CFR 3862.1-3 (d).
Title Opinion
When acceptable evidence of title has been filed, the case will be referred to the appropriate office of the solicitor, Department of the Interior for an opinion on whether full possessory title is vested with the applicant.
In Mulkern v. Hammitt, 326 F2d 896, 897 (1964), the Ninth Circuit Court said:
The location of a mineral claim upon the public lands of the United States is, in effect a unilateral act by the locator. It indicates that, in his opinion, there are minerals upon the land which are susceptible of profitable exploitation. That opinion may, of course, be, upon examination by less optimistic persons, regarded as ill-founded. If it is, the Government must have the right to clear the title and the right to the possession of its land from a useless and annoying encumbrance.

This may clear a few things as well that this 'Handling of the Title' is still going on now with the latest "Code" just takes more time, research and money.

 

[Assembler]

Just for fun.

Plats:
A big difference between this "Mineral survey" and the "Public land subdivisional survey".

Just for fun and to lighten up the topic. Some say this one has lost there mind by making the statements above as well as the topic heading............LOL

 

[Assembler]

Just for fun and to lighten up the topic. Some say this one has lost there mind by making the statements above as well as the topic heading............LOL
View attachment 1466105

It is a good thing for one the make fun of oneself from time to time. Hope some people got a laugh out of this. Thank you.

 

[Assembler]

Hello
Anyone care to share there experiences with a "Mineral Surveyors"?
Anyone care to share there experiences with "Metes-and-bounds surveys"?

 

[Rail Dawg]

Seems the issues have been discussed thoroughly?

Perhaps let it go?

 

[Assembler]

Seems the issues have been discussed thoroughly?

Perhaps let it go?

Got what you are saying if anyone wants to PM me let me know. Thank you.