## Facts

- Martin Womble filed a declaratory statement asserting a mineral claim to federal public land in California.
- Walter Castle later located the “Empire Quartz” mining claim on land that partially overlapped Womble’s declaratory statement, asserting gold-bearing quartz.
- The General Land Office cancelled Womble’s declaratory statement to the extent of the overlap but left the remainder intact.
- After the partial cancellation, Womble filed notice of intent to submit final proof.
- Castle protested Womble’s attempt to proceed, claiming a superior right based on a valid mineral discovery and location.
- Local land officers found the land contained sufficient gold to develop a mine, treated Womble’s declaratory statement as expired, and concluded Castle’s mining claim had attached to the overlapping ground.
- The General Land Office affirmed, and Womble appealed to the Department of the Interior.

## Issues

1. What constitutes a “discovery of a valuable mineral deposit” sufficient to support a valid mining location on public lands.
2. Whether Castle’s evidence of gold-bearing quartz satisfied the discovery requirement so that his mining location took priority over Womble’s overlapping declaratory claim.
3. Whether Womble could proceed to perfect title without excluding (segregating) the portion covered by Castle’s mining location.

## Decision

- The Department of the Interior affirmed the decisions below sustaining Castle’s protest.
- The Department held that a discovery exists when minerals are found and the evidence would justify a person of ordinary prudence to expend further labor and means with a reasonable prospect of success in developing a valuable mine.
- Applying that standard, the Department concluded Castle made a sufficient discovery on the Empire Quartz claim and his mining location had priority over Womble’s overlapping claim.
- Womble could not perfect title to land including the Empire Quartz claim unless he segregated the mining claim area from his entry.

## Legal Principles

- A mining location is supported by “discovery” when the mineralization shown would lead a person of ordinary prudence to invest further labor and capital with a reasonable prospect of developing a valuable mine (the “prudent man” test).
- The discovery requirement demands more than speculation but does not require a fully developed or proven profitable mine; the inquiry turns on reasonable prospects based on the evidence.
- A valid mining discovery and location gives the locator priority as to the claim area against conflicting attempts to acquire the same land through other public-land entry mechanisms.
- An entryman seeking to proceed on a claim cannot include land covered by a superior, valid mining location and must exclude the conflicting area to proceed on the remainder.

## Conclusion

The Department of the Interior affirmed that Castle’s gold-bearing quartz showing met the “prudent man” standard for discovery, giving his mining location superior rights to the overlapping ground and requiring Womble to exclude that area to pursue any remaining portion of his claim.


Castle v. Womble, 19 L.D. 455 (Dep’t Interior 1894)