Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

surveyor, Mark van Oosten, for staking purposes for the first

time in January, 1971.

Said surveyor's work, as well as that

of one other surveyor employed by Defendants, was confined

to Defendants' "Como" claims, which had been previously staked by MacGuire.

Defendants' employees Charles Knight and Rick

Halsey first attempted to commence drilling the "discovery"

holes referred to in Wyo. Stat. § 30-6 (1957) on November 30,

1970, but, before any drilling occurred, were notified by a MacGuire employee, Jack McCoy, that they could not drill

because the area to be drilled was claimed by MacGuire and Conoco. These Defendants' employees then departed, but returned

again on December 1, 1970.

Unable to start the motor for the

drilling rig and told by McCoy that they would be reported, they

returned to Glenrock, Wyoming.

The following day, Knight and

Halsey returned to commence such drilling but, arriving at an Allemand farm gate, were told by Allemand that they could do no drilling until they agreed to pay him $1.00 per acre for.

surface damages.

Knight and Halsey then left the area, and

no further attempts were made by Defendants to do any drilling

whatsoever.

12.

MacGuire's and Conoco's employees and agents

asserted their pedis possesio rights as against Defendants on several occasions and in various forms. On November 17, 1970,

Sturgis was telephoned by R. J. Hland, who identified himself

as

an attorney representing MacGuire and who asserted MacGuire's Arlin Krohn, a MacGuire employee, appraoched Defendants' employee.

possessory rights to the MacGuire claims .

On November 24, 1970,

Defendants' employees Halsey, and Louis Ellis were told to leave

the MacGuire claims by Conoco employee Bill Bright.

On November

30 and December 1, 1970, Defendants' attempts to commence drilling

discovery (validation) holes were opposed by MacGuire employee

McCoy.

On December 9, 1970, Sturgis was served with the summons

and complaint in the instant action.

On December 14, 1970,

van Oosten and asserted MacGuire's possessory rights to the

MacGuire claims.

Defendants only attempt at asserting any

possessory rights to the Sturgis claims as against MacGuire and Additional Defendants was in the form of

a

letter under date

of December 1, 1970, from A. Edgar Benton, an attorney then

representing Sturgis, to Conoco's Manager, Uranium Exploration

Division.

13.

Although some of Defendants' stakes were knocked

down and broken, Allemand testified he had several hundred

head of cattle grazing in the area where and when this allegedly

occurred, and Defendants' witness Halsey testified that this

could have been caused by livestock.

There was no evidence

that MacGuire or Additional Defendants were responsible therefor.

14.

Allemand, out of concern for surface damage to

be caused by equipment and drill holes, as well

as the chance

of injury to his livestock by such holes and loss of livestock by unlocked gates, independently required MacGuire, Continental

and Sturgis to agree to pay him $1.00 per acre for location

work, including the drilling of discovery (validation) holes,

and $25.00 per exploratory hole.

MacGuire so agreed and was

given permission to drill; Sturgis did not and made no counteroffer, and he was only given permission to do location work,

but not drill.

While Defendants insist that Allemand had no

legal right to deny them access, Defendants in fact were

permitted access in every way except drilling, and in that

latter respect Defendants made no attempt, by injunctive relief or any other legal remedy available to them, to obtain access

for drilling.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.

There being diversity of citizenship and the

matter in controversy being in excess of $10,000.00, the Court

has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter.

2.

Defendants acquired no rights of any kind or

nature relative to locating the Sturgis claims, because all of Defendants' location certificates in respect thereof include an affidavit of discovery work which contains a false material

statement or representation in violation of Wyo. Stat. § 30-6

(1957).

3.

Defendants acquired no rights of any kind or nature relative to locating the Sturgis claims, because said

claims were relocations of abandoned lode claims, and

Defendants neither drilled any new discovery shafts nor drilled

any original discovery shafts 10 feet deeper nor fixed, in most

instances, any new location stakes

as required by Wyo. Stat.

@ 30-9 (1957).

4.

Defendants made no discovery of uranium on any of the Sturgis claims, because they took and examined no

samples therefrom nor did they drill any. holes thereon.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

7. "In a pedis possessio conflict between two locators of lode mining claims, the better titlenrevails.

8. Plaintiff's entry onto the land covered by the

MacGuire claims was peaceable and not fraudulant or clandestine,

and Plaintiff is presently entitled to the exclusive possession

thereof on

a group

drei: basis where, as here, the following

exists or was done for his benefit:

the geology C!

the

(a)

area claimed is similar and the size of the area claimed is

reasonable;

(b)

the discovery (validation) work referred to

in Wyo. Stat. § 30-6 (1957) is completed;

(c)

an overall

work program is in effect for the area claimed;

[blocks in formation]

work procram is being diligently pursueri, i.tr., a significant

number of exploratory holes have been systematically drilled;

and (e)

the nature of the mineral claimed and the cost of

development would make it economically impracticable to develop

the mineral if the locator is awarded only those claims on

which he is actually present and currently working. Plaintiff is entitled to the future exclusive possession thereof so long

as he, or his successors in title, remain in possession thereof,

working diligently towards a discovery.

9. Since Plaintiff's entry upon the land covered ·by the Sturgis claims, Defendants have not been in possession

thereof and have not been working diligently towards a discovery

relative to said claims, and therefore arc 'not entitled to the exclusive possession of any such claims.

[blocks in formation]

DATED this 3

day of June, 1971.

JUC G E

[blocks in formation]

Civil No. 5523

ROY R. STURGIS, COTTER
CORPORATION, a New Mexico
corporation, and ARTHUR R.
THAYER,

Defendants,

CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY,
a Delaware corporation,
NATRONA SERVICE, INC., a
Wyoming corporation, RAY
ALLEMAND and ALLEMAND, INC.,
a Wyoming corporation,

)
)
)

Additional
Defendants on
Counterclaim.

JUDGMENT AND DECREE

The above entitled matter came on for trial before the

above entitled Court pursuant to setting on the 3rd day of May,

1971, plaintiff and the additional defendants on counterclaim being present and represented by their attorneys Houston G.

Williams and Kent R. Olson, and the defendants Sturgis and

Thayer being represented by their attorney Robert C. McCain,

and the defendant Cotter Corporation being represented by its

attorney William li. Burton, Jhi the porties having announced

themselves ready for trial the Court proceeded to a hearing

and trial of the above entitled matter without a jury', continuing

on the 3rd, 4th and 5th days of May, 1971.

(pon motion of

plaintiff and the additional difendants, the ciofault of the

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »