Parker v. Jones
Parker v. Jones
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiffs filed this suit to quiet title to three quartz mining claims, Summit #1, Summit #2, and Summit #3, located in Baker County.
An overview of the Oregon statutes relating to filings on quartz claims is necessary.
ORS 517.010 requires one locating a vein or lode to post a notice on the claim. The notice must contain the name of the claim; the name of the locator; the date of location; the number of linear feet claimed along the vein or lode each way from the point of discovery, with the width on each side; and the general course of the vein or lode. Also, within 30 days after posting the notice the locator must mark the boundaries "by six substantial posts, projecting not less than three feet above the surface of the ground, and not less than four inches square or in diameter, or by substantial mounds of stone, or earth and stone, at least two feet in height, to wit: one such post or mound of rock at each comer and at the center ends of such claims.” ORS 517.010 (2).
Thereafter, the locator shall file a copy of the posted notice with the county clerk. ORS 517.030.
ORS 517.065 provides that all locations filed after December 31, 1898, that do not comply with ORS 517.010 or 517.030 "are void.”
In the instant case, the defendant staked the three claims in 1973.
The defendant made no attempt to comply with ORS 517.010 regarding marking the boundaries of his attempted locations and, under the statute, his locations are void. The obvious purpose of marking the boundaries is to give notice to others that that area has been appropriated. Plastic strips on trees not only fail to comply with the statutes but also are not permanent and, more importantly, they fail to point out the boundaries to anyone, as was demonstrated to the trial, court when the parties viewed the claims. We agree
Lastly, defendant contends the trial court erred in hearing some testimony in his absence. The defendant is a school teacher in Idaho and wanted the trial court to conduct some of the proceedings on a week-end. The trial court made every effort to accommodate the defendant, but in one instance, after the defendant had received notice at least five days in advance and had failed to appear, the trial court received some testimony from plaintiff and a geologist. Defendant is in no position to complain, because he had some obligation to adjust his schedule to comply with the trial docket of the court.
Affirmed.
Apparently plaintiffs are husband and wife. Only "Smoky” Parker testified, and we shall refer to him as the plaintiff.
In Wright v. Lyons, 45 Or 167, 77 P 81 (1904), the locator failed to mark the boundaries as required by the statute by omitting the two middle stakes and also failed to file an affidavit in proof of work. We held that such omissions were fatal and the claim invalid.
Plaintiff filed his locations in 1975. Plaintiff testified he found some notices posted at the entrances to one or more tunnels but that the notices did not indicate the name of the locator or the date. Plaintiff found no boundary stakes except the three placed by the prior owners of the claims.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- PARKER et ux v. JONES
- Cited By
- 1 case
- Status
- Published