Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Can a Placer Claim Be Over a Lode Claim?


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 Terry Soloman

Terry Soloman

    Platinum Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,170 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Congress, AZ - White Plains, NY
  • Interests:Caution: Reading Terry’s posts could cause involuntary evacuation or urination; erections lasting longer than four-hours; you may begin to feel gay or believe you are a lesbian trapped in a mans body; rare instances of satanic worship and animal sacrifice have been reported.

Posted 03 September 2012 - 07:12 PM

Or, if you own the LODE Claim, do you also own the 20 acre claim for placer as well?

#2 GlennM

GlennM

    Platinum Member

  • Supporting Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,804 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:eastern edge of Mesa, AZ
  • Interests:Why else would I be here?

Posted 03 September 2012 - 07:42 PM

Not how I read it. I'm certain of the placer over lode, but ownership of the surface minerals by the lode owner is where I don't know.

Beepin around
 


#3 Steel Pan

Steel Pan

    Platinum Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,864 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Variable
  • Interests:Anything that will get me out of the house.

Posted 03 September 2012 - 08:45 PM

Apples and oranges.
A "Placer" claim is a placer claim.
A "Lode" claim is a load claim.

Never a Lode/Placer or Placer/Lode.

...as I understand,IF there are both a Placer and a Lode claim in the same area,
they are two seperate claims and must not hinder the other's operation.
G-pa made me do it, he gave me my first "Steel" pan.

#4 Terry Soloman

Terry Soloman

    Platinum Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,170 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Congress, AZ - White Plains, NY
  • Interests:Caution: Reading Terry’s posts could cause involuntary evacuation or urination; erections lasting longer than four-hours; you may begin to feel gay or believe you are a lesbian trapped in a mans body; rare instances of satanic worship and animal sacrifice have been reported.

Posted 03 September 2012 - 10:01 PM

Here is the deal fellas.. I got a call today from a guy that has bought four, "20-acre Lode Claims," supposedly located "near the Vulture Mine in Wickenburg." He tells me he wants to work the claims as placer claims with an industrial trommel, and that the guy that sold him the claims for, "around $6,000.00," said he could do that with "no problems."

Obviously this guy is a greenhorn who bought the claims on the Internet, sight unseen. Now he wants to hire me to go out and post the claims and sample them. I told him I don't have a real good feeling about this, and wanted to do a little checking before getting back to him one way or the other. I have the seller's website and name, and the buyer is sending me the claim numbers, but this sounds like a swindle to me - Am I off base?

#5 Goldfinger

Goldfinger

    Platinum Member

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,332 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:37 AM

Here is the deal fellas.. I got a call today from a guy that has bought four, "20-acre Lode Claims," supposedly located "near the Vulture Mine in Wickenburg." He tells me he wants to work the claims as placer claims with an industrial trommel, and that the guy that sold him the claims for, "around $6,000.00," said he could do that with "no problems."

Obviously this guy is a greenhorn who bought the claims on the Internet, sight unseen. Now he wants to hire me to go out and post the claims and sample them. I told him I don't have a real good feeling about this, and wanted to do a little checking before getting back to him one way or the other. I have the seller's website and name, and the buyer is sending me the claim numbers, but this sounds like a swindle to me - Am I off base?


No doubt Uncle Ron , Bill know this guy and chances are I've heard of him before but can't remember it. Probably brought off ebay and I'd say he got screwed if he did.

Steve

#6 Bill Southern

Bill Southern

    Platinum Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Morristown, Arizona
  • Interests:Nugget Shooting, Gold Prospecting, Harley Riding, Chicken Ranching, and Gardening with too many more to list...

Posted 04 September 2012 - 05:55 AM

Yup likely know who the seller was.... If the person plans to do placer work he must first file the proper paperwork and POO to run industrial size equipment and do placer mining as a lode/hardrock calm does not include placer and visa-versa.....

Now as far as filing goes I know about placer and not lode filing, but have never heard of filing a 20 acre lode claim? Placer claims are 20 acres, but are not lode claims filed differently? I am sure someone with much more experience with lode claims will speak up here....

It is up to claim owner to know this and I would do some checking were I him because there may already be a placer claim in place depending on the area.

Don't think too much, you'll create a problem that wasn't even there in the first place.

 

Be Sure To See Nugget Shooter For all your MINELAB, COILTEK and other Metal detecting needs!

"A detector sitting in a closet only finds dust..." Jim Straight


#7 Hoser John

Hoser John

    Platinum Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Redding,Kalif.
  • Interests:Dredging,detecting,scuba diving,kayaking,history,getn'n'trouble

Posted 04 September 2012 - 06:31 AM

EZ one-the hardrock claim encroaches upon the surface claimants placer rights, therfore the twain shall never meet. Also visa versa the placer claim prohibits the hardrocker from mineral entry like the law says.First come first served has been the courts decisions of late. I've claimed both on a couple of claims in strange situations. BUT law no longer matters in this and many other scenarios as crooked lawyers,and judges,with pockets fulla casha have a tendency to get their own way nowadayzzzzz-sic sic sic-John

#8 clay

clay

    Silver Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:On the Gold Trail

Posted 04 September 2012 - 07:05 AM

Simple answer is ALL the minerals within either a placer or a lode claim belong to the locator. No one has a right to file any claim over a previously located valid mineral discovery.

Not so simple answer is that a placer claimant has a right to any lodes discovered within his claim location. If a placer locator does not claim a known lode within his location, and pay the higher rate for lode claims, - patent will only pass to the placer and not to the lode. This applies only to patents.

No placer can be located over a lode claim.

Lode claims are located by metes and bounds. The maximum size for any lode claim is 600 X 1500 feet. That comes out to 20.66 acres. :)

#9 Bill Southern

Bill Southern

    Platinum Member

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Morristown, Arizona
  • Interests:Nugget Shooting, Gold Prospecting, Harley Riding, Chicken Ranching, and Gardening with too many more to list...

Posted 04 September 2012 - 07:09 AM

And if that claim was purchased from the internet he better find out if his claim was filed over another.... Some online scammers are doing just that sad but true. I have had several poor souls show up at my shop and get at least one a winter with the internet claim blues, one was filed over a Roadrunner Claim at LSD! The fellow came to me asking me to locate where exactly his new claim was that he paid several thousand for, when I told him it was a claim called Jake 2 and owned by Roadrunners he was blown away. Not sure what ever came of that, but heard he never got his $$ back..... Buyer beware!

Still thinking something wrong with him having several "20 acre lode claims" as that is placer claim size and I am fairly sure lode claims are different in size normally. I just am not sure on this and hope someone will clarify. I see that it was above while I was posting, thanks Clay...

Don't think too much, you'll create a problem that wasn't even there in the first place.

 

Be Sure To See Nugget Shooter For all your MINELAB, COILTEK and other Metal detecting needs!

"A detector sitting in a closet only finds dust..." Jim Straight


#10 Steel Pan

Steel Pan

    Platinum Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,864 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Variable
  • Interests:Anything that will get me out of the house.

Posted 04 September 2012 - 07:41 AM

61054
Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 206



Section 3832.22 How Much Land May
I Include in My Mining Claim?


“…a lode claim may only extend the
exposed length of the lode or vein claimed,
or 1,500 feet, whichever comes first. If the
exposed vein is 1,000 feet long, and you have
reason to believe, from the geology, that
the vein or lode is 1,500 feet or longer,
you may take up the entire 1,500
allowed by law.”


G-pa made me do it, he gave me my first "Steel" pan.

#11 clay

clay

    Silver Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:On the Gold Trail

Posted 04 September 2012 - 08:03 AM

Basics of a lode claim:

General Mining Act of 1872 SEC. 2. That mining-claims upon veins or lodes of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper, or other valuable deposits heretofore located, shall be governed as to length along the vein or lode by the customs, regulations, and laws in force at the date of their location. A mining-claim located after the passage of this act, whether located by one or more persons, may equal, but shall not exceed, one thousand and five hundred feet in length along the vein or lode; but no location of a mining-claim shall be made until the discovery of the vein or lode within the limits of the claim located. No claim shall extend more than three hundred feet on each side of the middle of the vein at the surface, nor shall any claim be limited by any mining regulation to less than twenty-five feet on each side of the middle of the vein at the surface, except where adverse rights existing at the passage of this act shall render such limitation necessary. The end-lines of each claim shall be parallel to each other.



#12 elder-miner

elder-miner

    10 Karat Gold Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 371 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 08:14 AM

US Supreme Court Decision, 1920:

"A placer discovery will not sustain a lode location, nor a lode discovery a placer location." Cole v. Ralph, 1920, 40 S.Ct. 321, 252 U.S. 286, 64 L.Ed. 567.

Lode Claims
Deposits subject to lode claims include, classic veins or lodes having well defined boundaries. They also include other rock in place bearing valuable minerals and may be broad zones of mineralized rock. Examples include quartz or other veins bearing gold or other metallic minerals and large volume but low grade disseminated metallic deposits.

Placer Claims
Mineral deposits subject to placer claims include all those deposits not subject to lode claims. Originally, these included only deposits of unconsolidated materials, such as sand and gravel, containing free gold or other minerals. By Congressional acts and judicial interpretations, many nonmetallic bedded or layered deposits, such as gypsum and high calcium limestone, are also considered placer deposits.

#13 Terry Soloman

Terry Soloman

    Platinum Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,170 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Congress, AZ - White Plains, NY
  • Interests:Caution: Reading Terry’s posts could cause involuntary evacuation or urination; erections lasting longer than four-hours; you may begin to feel gay or believe you are a lesbian trapped in a mans body; rare instances of satanic worship and animal sacrifice have been reported.

Posted 04 September 2012 - 08:59 AM

Thanks for all the info all. I think I'm just going to pass on this and wish the guy the best of luck.

#14 elder-miner

elder-miner

    10 Karat Gold Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 371 posts

Posted 04 September 2012 - 09:20 AM

JasonG is correct.

I would suggest, if the guy plans to placer mine on his Lode claims.
He should file an association 60 acre placer claim over the top of the existing lode claims.
That would prevent anyone else from doing so.

In a situation where one wishes to file a Placer location over a Placer deposit within pre-existing Lode claims belong to someone else.
The Placer claimant should include a “Disclaimer” of any Lode deposits in his Placer claim location notice.

#15 GlennM

GlennM

    Platinum Member

  • Supporting Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,804 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:eastern edge of Mesa, AZ
  • Interests:Why else would I be here?

Posted 04 September 2012 - 12:41 PM

Terry, what is the shape of the claims, if plotted on a map? Because the lode will follow the vein which will very rarely trend N-S or E-W and will be 600' wide * up to 1500' long, totalling just over 20 acres (all stated above)
Is he asking you to do the ownership research, too?
If not, I would ask him to provide proof of land status (proving he is sole and rightful claimant) instead of passing on the money.

Beepin around
 


#16 oredigger62

oredigger62

    10 Karat Gold Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 467 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix Az.
  • Interests:Anything related to geology or having a geologic base...from rock collecting to gold prospecting to meteorite hunting. Gold , Guns , and Gems. I am also an inventor . If it's on or in the ground i am interested. see me on facebook at : lewismiller62@yahoo.com

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:16 PM

Brings up a question in my mind. I have a chance to buy ( iguess you call it that ) 4 placer claims each is a 20 acre plot and they are pairs side by side .... Would i be better off buying a lode claim for them or file as placers after the quit claim papers are completed by the previous owner ? All 4 plots are in the San domingo area... Also , when i get them all are welcome to use them at your own pleasure...

#17 Rimshot

Rimshot

    Platinum Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,593 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Target practice, gardening, enjoy taking pictures of wildlife, fixing up my property, and love to bs with friends.

Posted 04 September 2012 - 01:50 PM

OD,

I think it depends on what type of mining you want to do. Now correct me guys if i'm wrong. But I have read and think I comprehend some of the rules.

Say for instance you find, for the sake of discussion, a granite wall on the property and it has a 10" quartz vein running across it.

Technically if you have the claim listed as a placer, you can't go and pick or bust out that quartz vein. But if a chunk of quartz was just laying on the ground loose, you could bust it into tiny pieces because it's a placer claim.

If you list the claim as a lode claim, I think you can do just about any type of mining you want to do.

And if i'm wrong about this then i'm learning something new. So win win.

Rim

#18 Gramps43

Gramps43

    Copper Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • Pip
  • 30 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tillamook, OR
  • Interests:Women*, cars, guns, mining.

    * interested but that's about as far as it goes. 8<))

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:06 PM

I would think that after he makes sure the claims are encroaching on ant other claim and he gets noterized transfer of claim ownership he could fill up the paper work for placer claims using the same data as on the lode claims. then he would go in and close the lode claims and file the the placer claims, the only thing that cahnges is the type of claim they are. Of course I could be shoot'n blanks, wait a minute I do, but that's another story.

Gramps

#19 clay

clay

    Silver Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 202 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:On the Gold Trail

Posted 04 September 2012 - 02:11 PM

Sorry elder_miner but I don't believe JasonG has it right. I often see where people have construed the 1955 Act to have somehow changed the mining laws. The 9th Circuit Court explored that misconception extensively in U.S. V. Curtis Nevada Mines in 1980. Lets see what the courts findings were and how the law may have changed and also how it in no way changed the operation of the mining laws or the rights of a senior locator.

Quotes from U.S. V. Curtis Nevada Mines:

We look first to the legislative history of the Act. As this court has previously noted, Congress did not intend to change the basic principles of the mining laws when it enacted the Multiple Use Act. Converse v. Udall, 399 F.2d 616, 617 (9th Cir. 1968), Cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1025, 89 S.Ct. 635, 21 L.Ed.2d 569 (1969). The Multiple Use Act was corrective legislation, which attempted to clarify the law and to alleviate abuses that had occurred under the mining laws. H.R.Rep.No.730, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. 7-8, Reprinted in (1955) 2 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 2474, 2480 (hereinafter House Report 730); Converse, 399 F.2d at 617. The statute was designed to provide for "multiple use of the surface of the same tracts of public lands, compatible with unhampered subsurface resource development." H.R.Rep.No.730 at 8, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, p. 2480; 101 Cong.Rec. 8743 (1955). The purpose of the Multiple Use Act as stated broadly in House Report 730 is:

13
to permit more efficient management and administration of the surface resources of the public lands by providing for multiple use of the same tracts of such lands.

14
. . . to prohibit the use of any hereafter located unpatented mining claim for any purpose other than prospecting, mining, processing, and related activities.

15
. . . to limit the rights of a holder of an unpatented mining claim hereafter located to the use of the surface and surface resources.

16
H.R.Rep.No.730 at 2, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 2474-75.1



So what about the priority of locations did the 1955 Act change?

17
This concept of multiple use of surface resources of a mining claim was not intended, however, to interfere with the historical relationship between the possessor of a mining claim and the United States.

18
This language, carefully developed, emphasizes the committee's insistence that this legislation not have the effect of modifying long-standing essential rights springing from location of a mining claim.

Dominant and primary use of the locations hereafter made, as in the past, would be vested first in the locator; the United States would be authorized to manage and dispose of surface resources, or to use the surface for access to adjacent lands, so long as and to the extent that these activities do not endanger or materially interfere with mining, or related operations or activities on the mining claim.

19
Id. at 10, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, p. 2483.


The court spent a lot more time explaining just what the 1955 Act changed and what the congressional intent was in the 1955 Act. Nowhere does the court find that the process or laws of location were changed. You can read the entire case HERE.

I too have an open mind on this subject. I do a lot of research and nowhere have I found a Court Decision or Law that states there has been any change in the laws regarding priority of location or the exclusive nature of the mineral rights within that claim.

I would like to make the point that challenging another to produce a court ruling to prove their theory wrong is really the wrong way to go about proving your theory. It is not the lack of a fact that proves a matter but rather the presence of a fact that establishes proof.

Nonetheless I will entertain Jason's challenge "If someone can show a case that occured after 1955 that demonstrates you may not file a placer over a lode claim then I'd be very interested to see it and open to change my mind." with this little tidbit:

The validity of filing placer claims over established lode claims on public lands was at issue in Bixby v. Reynolds Mining Corp. The Supreme Court of New Mexico reaffirmed former decisions that a person seeking to establish placer claims over lode claims was trespassing when he was on the land without a lease at the time he purportedly discovered the placer minerals and could not establish a valid placer claim.

This was published by the Engineering & Mining Journal on February 1, 1993. The case is available on Pacer or from the Engineering & Mining Journal archive. There are many many more.

It is wise to remember that Congress can not amend or repeal an existing law by implication, they must do so in clear language that addresses the original law in the amendment or repeal.

I have found no such amendment or repeal. In fact the current USC declares the laws of location and entry to be unchanged since 1872 with the exception of the filing of informational notices with the BLM.

The Mining Acts clearly state that a placer owner that discovers a lode on their claim prior to patent has the right to file a location on that lode. Failure to do so will not transfer the lode in a patent application for the placer. Other than that single provision I have never seen a law that enables placer to be filed over a valid lode. Nor a lode filed over a valid placer claim. Both with the single exception of invited (non adverse) prospectors or leases.

This is an interesting subject that comes up over and over again on these forums. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

#20 Steel Pan

Steel Pan

    Platinum Member

  • Nugget Shooter Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,864 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Variable
  • Interests:Anything that will get me out of the house.

Posted 04 September 2012 - 03:25 PM

" I have never seen a law that enables placer to be filed over a valid lode. Nor a lode filed over a valid placer claim."

That has always been my understanding.
G-pa made me do it, he gave me my first "Steel" pan.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users