MadMarshall
Hero Member
Clay.
What constitutes a Discovery? How does the prudent man test or the Marketability test apply now a days? Do they apply differently for the type of use a claim is intended for? Example club claims are intended for recreational use the gold values on a claim are not what is exploited for a profit. clubs claim value are Soley in their recreational qualities. How does this apply to non profit clubs their claims used as an incentive for donations?
Claim owners who lease claims are still reliant on the actual gold values there claims hold.
Claim owners who wish to extract the mineral for a profit are reliant on the gold values on particular claim.
even if a recreational claim held any gold values.. The claim is not worked in a manner that would constitute any kind of efficiency in extracting the mineral deposit. Since the owners of club claims do not rely on an actual valuable deposit but more so the opportunity of finding gold.
What defines a "prudent man" in mining law when it was written?
So I make a discovery how do I know how much land to stake? As much as can? as many family members as I can get to sign? Does it matter that I only sampled a 10feet section and found gold? so I claimed 160 acres?
Is mining law written with the intention of economic explotation of minerals? or just in general?
Your questions about Discovery, Prudent Man, Marketability and Recreation use are all about miners rights and obligations under federal law. Those are all questions for land management of the public lands. Only the United States can challenge an existing claim on one of those legal points - other miners, claim owners and prospectors can not. Those challenges are handled administratively and ultimately resolved in a Federal Court. Other prospectors have no part in a Federal suit against claim validity.
The subject of this thread is about a dispute between miners. Disputes between rival claimants are a civil matter. It's up to the adverse claimants to settle the dispute between them or sue to have a judge decide. County, or in some cases, State Courts are where those civil disputes are ultimately settled. The Federal government has no part in a civil suit between claimants.
The reason the subject of this thread and the subject you bring up have nothing to do one with the other is because Congress in the very first Mining Act made that single point a law. Here is the whole 1865 Mining Act:
That no possessory action between individuals in any of the courts of the United States for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land on which such mines are, is in the United States, but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession. Pretty slick huh? The Congress just permanently ducked the United States out of having anything to do with one miners dispute with another. No matter how wronged you feel you have been treated by another claimant the Feds want nothing to do with your dispute.
Same thing the other way around. Short of lobbying to get a law changed you can't make the Federal government enforce the laws you want enforced against another claim and you can't challenge another miners claim based on Discovery, Prudent Man, Marketability or Recreation because it's not your job to administer the public lands.
Quote Originally Posted by MadMarshall View Post
Is mining law written with the intention of economic explotation of minerals? or just in general?
Specifically the mining laws were enacted to:
An Act to promote the Development of the mining Resources of The United States. So I guess just about anyone could argue that as long as the law wasn't violated and mining resources were developed then it's all good.
Nothing in there about economic exploitation or even minerals although I can see how you would reasonably assume those were involved. I just find it more useful to know the actual words used rather than go with my interpretation of what might have been meant. It saves misunderstanding down the line.
I was serious when I wrote those were good questions Marshall. Why not start a thread with that subject and maybe we can cover both the civil and the law side in different places so readers don't confuse one with the other?
Heavy Pans
What constitutes a Discovery? How does the prudent man test or the Marketability test apply now a days? Do they apply differently for the type of use a claim is intended for? Example club claims are intended for recreational use the gold values on a claim are not what is exploited for a profit. clubs claim value are Soley in their recreational qualities. How does this apply to non profit clubs their claims used as an incentive for donations?
Claim owners who lease claims are still reliant on the actual gold values there claims hold.
Claim owners who wish to extract the mineral for a profit are reliant on the gold values on particular claim.
even if a recreational claim held any gold values.. The claim is not worked in a manner that would constitute any kind of efficiency in extracting the mineral deposit. Since the owners of club claims do not rely on an actual valuable deposit but more so the opportunity of finding gold.
What defines a "prudent man" in mining law when it was written?
So I make a discovery how do I know how much land to stake? As much as can? as many family members as I can get to sign? Does it matter that I only sampled a 10feet section and found gold? so I claimed 160 acres?
Is mining law written with the intention of economic explotation of minerals? or just in general?
Your questions about Discovery, Prudent Man, Marketability and Recreation use are all about miners rights and obligations under federal law. Those are all questions for land management of the public lands. Only the United States can challenge an existing claim on one of those legal points - other miners, claim owners and prospectors can not. Those challenges are handled administratively and ultimately resolved in a Federal Court. Other prospectors have no part in a Federal suit against claim validity.
The subject of this thread is about a dispute between miners. Disputes between rival claimants are a civil matter. It's up to the adverse claimants to settle the dispute between them or sue to have a judge decide. County, or in some cases, State Courts are where those civil disputes are ultimately settled. The Federal government has no part in a civil suit between claimants.
The reason the subject of this thread and the subject you bring up have nothing to do one with the other is because Congress in the very first Mining Act made that single point a law. Here is the whole 1865 Mining Act:
That no possessory action between individuals in any of the courts of the United States for the recovery of any mining title, or for damages to any such title, shall be affected by the fact that the paramount title to the land on which such mines are, is in the United States, but each case shall be adjudged by the law of possession. Pretty slick huh? The Congress just permanently ducked the United States out of having anything to do with one miners dispute with another. No matter how wronged you feel you have been treated by another claimant the Feds want nothing to do with your dispute.
Same thing the other way around. Short of lobbying to get a law changed you can't make the Federal government enforce the laws you want enforced against another claim and you can't challenge another miners claim based on Discovery, Prudent Man, Marketability or Recreation because it's not your job to administer the public lands.
Quote Originally Posted by MadMarshall View Post
Is mining law written with the intention of economic explotation of minerals? or just in general?
Specifically the mining laws were enacted to:
An Act to promote the Development of the mining Resources of The United States. So I guess just about anyone could argue that as long as the law wasn't violated and mining resources were developed then it's all good.
Nothing in there about economic exploitation or even minerals although I can see how you would reasonably assume those were involved. I just find it more useful to know the actual words used rather than go with my interpretation of what might have been meant. It saves misunderstanding down the line.
I was serious when I wrote those were good questions Marshall. Why not start a thread with that subject and maybe we can cover both the civil and the law side in different places so readers don't confuse one with the other?
Heavy Pans
Amazon Forum Fav đź‘Ť
Upvote
0