## Facts

- Competing mining claims overlapped on federal public lands in Nevada.
- Cole and others claimed rights under two placer locations (Guy Davis and Homestake) and succeeded to those interests.
- Ralph claimed rights under lode locations, including Salt Lake No. 3, Midas, and Evening Star, and sought a patent for multiple lode claims.
- The placer claimants filed adverse claims in the land office and brought adverse suits to support them; Ralph removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
- The cases were tried together to a jury, which returned general verdicts for the placer claimants and special verdicts finding that, when the placer locations were made, no lode had been discovered within any of the lode locations.
- The district court entered judgment for the placer claimants and denied Ralph’s motions for a new trial.
- The court of appeals reversed and ordered a new trial based on its reading of Rev. Stat. § 2332 (30 U.S.C. § 38).
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reviewed the mining-law and related procedural questions.

## Issues

1. Whether a lode location is valid against conflicting placer locations absent an actual lode discovery within the lode claim boundaries before the placer locations were made.
2. Whether Rev. Stat. § 2332 (30 U.S.C. § 38), allowing proof of possessory title by long possession and working, can substitute for or cure the absence of an actual mineral discovery.
3. Whether various procedural and title objections (pleading defects, joinder, community property, attachment, misnomer, and revenue-stamp objections) defeated the adverse suits.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and sustained the judgments for the placer claimants.
- The Court held that a valid mining location requires an actual discovery of valuable mineral within the claim, and the jury’s special findings established no lode discovery existed when the placer locations were made.
- The Court held Rev. Stat. § 2332 does not dispense with discovery and cannot be used to support a lode claim where no discovery is shown.
- The Court rejected ancillary challenges, including those concerning pleadings, party status, community property standing, attachment effects, misnomer, and lack of federal revenue stamps on deeds.

## Legal Principles

- A mining location (lode or placer) confers no rights without an actual discovery of valuable mineral within the claim boundaries.
- A placer discovery cannot sustain a lode location, and a lode discovery cannot sustain a placer location; the discovery must match the type of claim asserted.
- Rev. Stat. § 2332 (30 U.S.C. § 38) eases proof of a valid claim when records of location or transfers are missing, but it presupposes discovery and does not substitute for it.
- In ejectment, omission of an allegation of possession in the complaint may be cured where the defendant’s answer asserts the defendant’s possession; objections to pleading defects must be timely raised.
- An unrecorded agreement granting a share of mining proceeds and a right to have a claim worked may be valid between the parties and support joinder as a plaintiff in an adverse suit.
- Under Nevada community-property rules, a mining interest conveyed by a husband to a wife for stated present consideration is presumed community property absent proof of separate funds or gift intent, permitting the husband to sue to protect the community interest.
- Attachment of a locator’s interest does not prevent filing or prosecuting an adverse claim; successors acquiring through attachment may be substituted and benefit from the locator’s adverse acts.
- An inadvertent, non-prejudicial misnomer in naming an adverse claimant does not invalidate the adverse claim, and lack of federal revenue stamps on a deed did not render it void or inadmissible under the governing revenue statute.

## Conclusion

The Court held that discovery is the indispensable prerequisite to a valid mining claim and that long possession and working under Rev. Stat. § 2332 cannot replace the need for an actual discovery; because the jury found no lode discovery before the placer locations, the placer claimants prevailed.


Cole v. Ralph, 252 U.S. 286 (1920)