¶1 I dissent from the order denying a rehearing of this cause. There can be no location of a mining claim before discovery, and there can be no transfer or assignment of a location before the location is complete. There can, in other words, be no assignment of the right to locate. If, in the expectation of discovery, an association of persons marks the boundary of a placer claim containing twenty acres for each associate, I have no doubt that they will be protected in their possession while they proceed with reasonable diligence to prospect the claim, and that by a discovery they will perfect it; but if some of the associates withdraw before discovery or attempt to assign their claims to those who continue the work of development, those who remain will have no right to a claim greater in the aggregate than they could have taken by an original location.
140 Cal. 440
73 P 1083
Miller v. Chrisman
Decided September 30, 1903
California Supreme Court · decided 1903-09-30
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. W. R. McQuiddy, Austin & Jones, George W. Jones, Reddy, Campbell & Metson, and Campbell, Metson & Campbell, for Appellants. The discovery of mineral is sufficient to protect a location. It need not be found in paying quantities. (Castle v. Womble, 19 L. D. 455; Tam v. Story, 24 L. D. 442; Book v. Justice Min.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1903-09-30
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently December 1965 · most notably Chrisman v. Miller (1905), Union Oil Co of California v. Smith (1919)
14 federal appellate · 14 district · 37 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →