UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

The object of requiring the posting of the preliminary notice of mining claims is to make known the purpose of the discoverer and to warn other of the prior appropriation, and one having actual knowledge of a prior location and the extent of its boundaries, the outlines of which have been marked, cannot relocate it for himself and claim a forfeiture of the original location for want of strict compliance with all the statutory requirements of preliminary notice.

The determination by the trial court that the locators of a mining claim had resumed work on the claim after a failure to do the annual assessment work, required by § 2324, Rev.Stat., and before a new location had been made, and the finding by the highest court of the state that such determination is conclusive, do not amount to the denial of a federal right set up by the party claiming the right to relocate the claim, and this Court cannot review the judgment under § 709, Rev.Stat.

Quaere, and not decided, whether a forfeiture arises simply from a violation of a mining rule established by miners of a district which does not expressly make noncompliance therewith work a forfeiture.

149 Cal. 50 affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion. clubjuris

Page 208 U. S. 28