Woody v. Bernard
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Newton. Circuit Court. E. G. Mitchell, Judge. The local law is binding, unless it conflicts with section 2324, Eev. Stat. TJ. S. There is no statute in Arkansas upon the subject. Cf. 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 559; 7 Fed. 336. Any _ rule, regulation or custom which attempts to make the manual labor on a mining claim less than $100 in actual value is void. Eev. Stat. IT. S. § 2324; Morrison’s Min. Eights (10th Ed.), 86, 6; Barr. & Ad.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Newton. Circuit Court. E. G. Mitchell, Judge. The local law is binding, unless it conflicts with section 2324, Eev. Stat. TJ. S. There is no statute in Arkansas upon the subject. Cf. 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 559; 7 Fed. 336. Any _ rule, regulation or custom which attempts to make the manual labor on a mining claim less than $100 in actual value is void. Eev. Stat. IT. S. § 2324; Morrison’s Min. Eights (10th Ed.), 86, 6; Barr. & Ad. Mines, 267, 274; 7 Col. 443 ; 6 Sawy. 299; S. C. 22 Meyer’s Fed. Dec. 645, § 113; 97 Fed. 386.
1Opinion of the CourtBurn, C. J.
The appellants on the 22d of February, 1897, located a mining claim, under the laws of the United States, on the land in controversy, the same being land of the United States. In 1898, appellants, in order to comply with the laws, and thus acquire title to said lands, performed twenty days’ labor on said claim for the purpose of developing the same. In June, 1899, appel-lees, claiming to have purchased the interest of Murray & Sparks, former locators, took possession of the lands without the knowledge or consent of appellants, and commenced work thereon, and in July of the same year…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Ware v. WhiteSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906