Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/878

 864 PEDBBAL BEPOETEB. �R. S. Morrison and Hugh Butler, for plaintiffs. �H. M. Teller and E. 0. Wolcott, for defendants. �HaIiIjBtt, D. J. Defendant applied in the land-office at Central City to enter the Charlotte Iode, and plaintiffs made adverse claim to a part of the territory as the Ocean Wave, and brought this suit in support of their claim. The claims overlap near the ends, and the area in dispute is not very large. The Ocean Wave is something more than 10 years older than the other location, and a tunnel has been run nearly the whole length of the claim. At the trial there ■was evidence to show that the Iode was discovered in the year 1867, and that work had been done in the tunnel from time to time there- after, until this suit was brought. Very little ore was taken from the tunnel, but several witnesses testified that the Iode was well defined and clearly traceable throughout the length of the tunnel. An attempt was made to show a valid location, according to the law in force in 1867, and plaintiffs also relied on a relocation in 1875. In this plaintiffs were not successful, and they were at last forced to rely on possession only in themselves and their grantors as evidence of title. As to the matter of possession, it was shown that the tunnel was worked from time to time, and by different parties, from the date of discovery in 1867 until this suit was brought. Some of the parties in possession, and others who were not in possession, had conveyed parts of the claim, or an interest therein, to other parties named; but, as plaintiffs were unable to connect themselves with these con- veyances, they were not received. One conveyance made by a mas- ter in chancery, under a decree of court, in Clear Creek county, was, however, received under the circumstances which will now be stated : �In the year 1875, and for some time prior thereto, the Leaven- worth Mountain Mining & Tunnelling Company was in possession of the property, and had done some work in the tunnel. They had erected buildings at the mouth of the tunnel, and appeared to have and hold undisputed possession, but whether under claim of title was not shown. In this situation of affairs, one James M. Estelle brought suit against that company in the district court of Clear Creek county, and in June, 1876, obtained a decree for the sale of the premises, to satisfy several amounts of money in the decree mentioned. The premises were sold under the decree to Estelle and Morrison, and in due time a deed was made to Estelle, Morrison having assigned to him his interest in the purchase. �Several plaintiffs claim by descent, and others by purchase from Estelle; and there was evidence at the trial tending to prove that ��� �