A. Any person or persons desiring to locate a mining claim upon a vein or lode of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposit must distinctly mark the location on the ground by four substantial posts or monuments, one at each corner of the claim, so that its boundaries may be readily traced, and post in some conspicuous place on such location, a notice in writing stating thereon the name or names of the locator or locators and his or their intention to locate the mining claim, giving a description thereof by reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim.

B. The locator shall, at the time of making location of any placer mining claim, cause a notice of the location to be placed at a designated corner of the claim so located, stating the name of the claim, the purpose and the kind of material for which the claim is located, the name of the person locating same, and, if located upon surveyed lands, the notice shall contain a description of the claim by its legal subdivision. If upon unsurveyed lands, the notice shall contain a description of the claim by metes and bounds, with reference to some known object or monument. And whether upon surveyed or unsurveyed lands, each corner of the claim shall be marked by a post at least four feet high, securely set in the ground, or by a substantial stone monument.

C. The date of posting of written notice on the location pursuant to Subsection A or B of this section is deemed to be the date of location. Within ninety days after the date of location, the locator of a lode or placer claim shall file for record in the office of the clerk of the county in which the claim is located, a written notice of location for the claim containing:

(1) the name of the claim;

(2) the name and current mailing address of the owner of the claim;

(3) an identification of the claim as either lode or placer;

(4) the date of location;

(5) a description reciting, to the extent possible, the section in which the claim is located and the approximate location of all or any part of the claim by quarter section. In addition, there shall be furnished the section, township and range; and

(6) either a topographic map published by the U.S. geological survey or copy of such map on which there shall be depicted the location of the claim, or a narrative or sketch describing the claim with reference by appropriate tie to some topographic, hydrographic or man-made feature. Such map, narrative description or sketch shall set forth the boundaries and positions of the individual claim with such accuracy as will allow the claim to be identified and located on the ground and shall be no larger than eight and one-half inches by fourteen inches. More than one claim may be shown on a single map or described in a single narrative or sketch if they are located in the same general area, so long as the individual claims are clearly identified.

D. Nothing in the requirement for a map or description found in this section shall require the locator or locators of a claim to employ a professional surveyor or engineer.

History: Laws 1876, ch. 38, § 1; C.L. 1884, § 1566; C.L. 1897, § 2286; Code 1915, § 3445; C.S. 1929, § 88-101; 1941 Comp., § 67-201; 1953 Comp., § 63-2-1; Laws 1981, ch. 310, § 1.

Cross references. — For recording unacknowledged mine location notices, see 14-8-5 NMSA 1978.

For ejectment from mining claim, see 42-4-21 NMSA 1978.

For mechanics lien on a mining claim, see 48-2-2 NMSA 1978 et seq.

For recording royalty assignments, see 70-1-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.

For mining rights in Lincoln National Forest, see 16 U.S.C. §§ 482e to 482g; in Santa Fe National Forest, see 16 U.S.C. §§ 482j to 482l.

Record must conform to federal requirements. — As a preliminary or discovery notice of location is unknown to laws of New Mexico, a locator, as against a subsequent locator who enters peaceably, must post such a notice, as when a copy thereof is recorded, the record will meet the requirements of 30 U.S.C. § 28 as to location notice. Deeney v. Mineral Creek Milling Co., 1902-NMSC-005, 11 N.M. 279, 67 P. 724.

Compliance prerequisite to maintenance of claim absent possession. — If a person has complied with the requirements of this section and federal law, his claim is protected from intrusion by others, but he cannot deprive another of the right to locate upon the same ground unless he has complied with this section or is in actual possession of the land. Blake v. Cavins, 1919-NMSC-047, 25 N.M. 574, 185 P. 374.

Noncompliance renders location void. — This section is supplemental to and not inconsistent with the federal mining laws and is valid, and a failure to comply substantially therewith renders the location void. Upton v. Santa Rita Mining Co., 1907-NMSC-017, 14 N.M. 96, 89 P. 275.

Failure to record notice of claim does not work forfeiture of the claim, or make it subject to relocation, and title is good as against one trying to locate the claim, and filing record, with knowledge of prior claim and work done. Johnson v. Ryan, 1939-NMSC-002, 43 N.M. 127, 86 P.2d 1040; Cravens v. Degner, 1929-NMSC-073, 34 N.M. 323, 281 P. 22.

Peaceable entry allowed on invalid location. — No right can be initiated on the public domain by a forcible or fraudulent entry even if the person in possession has an invalid claim. But this rule does not prevent a peaceable entry by a prospector when the first occupant has not made a valid location. Adams v. Benedict, 1958-NMSC-051, 64 N.M. 234, 327 P.2d 308.

Possession dependent on diligent operation. — A prospector taking possession of land may hold it only for such time as he is diligently and persistently conducting his operations in good faith with the intent to make a discovery of mineral. Adams v. Benedict, 1958-NMSC-051, 64 N.M. 234, 327 P.2d 308.

Work stoppage by locator cuts off partner's legal title. — Ejectment to recover mining property in territory of New Mexico cannot be based on fact that relocators had acquired such property by a relocation pursuant to a conspiracy with partner of locator, whereby that partner, who was not a relocator, stopped necessary work on mine and abandoned possession thereof, as such facts do not give locator legal title thereto or any part thereof. Lockhart v. Johnson, 181 U.S. 516, 21 S. Ct. 665, 45 L. Ed. 979 (1901), modifying Lockhart v. Wills, 1898-NMSC-007, 9 N.M. 344, 54 P. 336, appeal dismissed, 19 S. Ct. 878, 43 L. Ed. 1186 (1899).

Possessory title strength of all weighed. — The court must consider the strength of the possessory title of each of the adverse parties in an action to recover possession of a mining claim. Winslow v. Burns, 1943-NMSC-001, 47 N.M. 29, 132 P.2d 1048.

Proof of superior title required. — In an action of ejectment to recover possession of a mine, on the ground of an alleged prior location, made under an Act of Congress of May 10, 1872 (30 U.S.C. § 23 et seq.) where relocators claim under a notice of relocation, and the only question was as to the performance by the locators of the annual labor required by said congressional act, an instruction to the jury that before locators can recover they must prove some title and right to possession, by a preponderance of the evidence, and that such right must be superior to that of relocators, is a proper instruction. Wills v. Blain, 1889-NMSC-021, 5 N.M. 238, 20 P. 798.

Notice sufficient which with reasonable certainty identifies extent of claim. — In ejectment to recover possession of a mining claim, a location notice is sufficient which refers to certain natural objects and monuments with sufficient certainty to identify the claim, although it does not indicate whether such objects and monuments are of a permanent nature, when this can be shown by parol evidence, for the object of the notice is to advise the public with reasonable certainty of the location and extent of the claim and identify it. Seidler v. LaFave, 1889-NMSC-005, 5 N.M. 44, 20 P. 789.

Relocation notice admits validity of original location. — The recitals in a notice of relocation of a mining claim may be construed as solemnly admitting the validity of an original location. Wills v. Blain, 1889-NMSC-021, 5 N.M. 238, 20 P. 798.

Boundary marking relates back to posting of notice. — If the locator of a mining claim, after making his discovery and posting notice, marks the boundaries of his location within a reasonable time, the marking relates back to the time he posted a sufficient notice. Winslow v. Burns, 1943-NMSC-001, 47 N.M. 29, 132 P.2d 1048.

Recording of names of locators of contiguous mines owned in common not required. — That names of the locators of mining claims must be recorded is a requirement of the statute which is of no significance, as they cannot modify congressional legislation as to a holding in common of all mines, which, if contiguous, may be developed by work begun on one of the mines. Eberle v. Carmichael, 1895-NMSC-023, 8 N.M. 169, 42 P. 95, writ of error dismissed, 177 U.S. 63, 20 S. Ct. 571, 44 L. Ed. 672 (1900).

Statute of frauds inapplicable. — Where each of three persons locates a different mine, under a parol agreement that all mines located by any should be owned in common by all, the agreement is not within the statute of frauds. Eberle v. Carmichael, 1896-NMSC-034, 8 N.M. 696, 47 P. 717.

Law reviews. — For comment, "A Judicial Approach to Updating the Mining Laws of 1872-Pedis Possessio," see 10 Nat. Resources J. 385 (1970).

For comment, "Mining Law: Annual Assessment Work, New Directions; The Need to Include Antiquities Survey," see 20 Nat. Resources J. 933 (1980).

For note, "New Mexico Statute Eliminates Previous Mining Law Discovery Work Requirements," see 22 Nat. Resources J. 433 (1982).

For note, "Wide Pattern Pedis Possessio: The Expansion of Prediscovery Mineral Claim Protection in New Mexico," see 24 Nat. Resources J. 437 (1984).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 53A Am. Jur. 2d Mines and Minerals §§ 8, 26, 44, 45, 47.

Railroad company's right in respect of material or mineral within right-of-way, 21 A.L.R. 1131.

Escheat of mining claim transferred to alien, necessity of judicial proceedings, 23 A.L.R. 1247, 79 A.L.R. 1364.

Merger in deed of provisions of antecedent contract as to mining rights in other land of grantor, 84 A.L.R. 1030, 38 A.L.R.2d 1310.

Railroad company's right to remove, or permit removal of, materials, underneath its right-of-way, 94 A.L.R. 531, 149 A.L.R. 378.

Acquisition of title to mines or minerals, 35 A.L.R.2d 124.

Discovery of radioactive minerals within mining laws, 66 A.L.R.2d 560.

58 C.J.S. Mines and Minerals, §§ 34 to 56.