'Dissenting Opinion: Field, Harlan, Brown, JJ. general government conveying to him fifty-six acres and a fraction of an acre of valuable mineral ground are not to be deprived years subsequent to their purchase of nearly one-fifth of it, or, indeed, any portion of it, because his neighbors at the time or subsequently residing near the premises believed that there was a vein or lode under the surface of his claim which he ought not to have. To sustain the admission of such beliefs or opinions in evidence against the patent would be to take from that instrument of the government all the peace and security which it is supposed to give to its possessor in the enjoyment of the property it transfers to him. An unlocated lode claim, existing only in the impressions and beliefs of neighbors or others, and not in knowledge founded upon discovery and exploration, does not seem to me to have any element of property or validity as a basis of a defence to proceedings to obtain a patent from the government. 3. The testimony received of conversations of the same witness with Stevens, as to the latter's opinion in 1887 of the existence of a large body of metal "underlying all the ground there," referring to ground where he had employed men to work, would seem to be subject to still greater objection, for it was not shown that the ground referred to embraced the premises in controversy. Leonhardy testified that in the spring of 1877 Stevens came to his house and told him that the country, referring to the ground upon which his men were at work, was good, the best mineral country he ever saw, but that if he told the men he had employed so, they would leave him as soon as they got there and go on their own hook; and again, that he had found an immense body of mineral underlying all that ground there, that he had shipped many tons which had paid him a handsome profit, and that he was going to secure the ground and begin very heavy operations. It does not appear, however, what operations he did commence, if any, or what interest he then had in the "ground there" beyond. that of a prospector and explorer, or that he ever made any mining location himself, or acquired any title to any mines except by the purchase mentioned from the patentee. Nor does it appear that he possessed any special knowledge of the Dissenting Opinion: Field, Harlan, Brown, JJ. character of the mines. He had only an impression and theory that the land was rich in mineral. Without making the many possible allowances admissible for inaccuracies and exaggerations of the witness respecting statements made eight years before, there is nothing in what Stevens is reported to have said to him of the mineral richness of the country that can possibly affect the validity of the patent of the government to the patentee, Moyer, of other and different land. The only other testimony introduced to connect Stevens with the patentee, and to show that Moyer, the patentee, had knowledge of the existence of any lode before his application for the present patent, is that of the witness Norris, who said that Moyer, the patentee, told him, not stating the time or place, that he, Moyer, was going to get a placer patent for Mr. Stevens, who was afraid that miners would adverse him, and he wanted Moyer to get the patent for him, not mentioning of what land such patent was to be had. It subsequently appeared that this alleged conversation had reference to a different claim than that of Moyer-to that of Wells and Moyer. It would be a waste of time to argue that such statements, if made, do not even tend to prove any such knowledge of a lode within the claim, for a disregard of which in his application one-fifth of the rights acquired by the patent can be defeated, years after the patent has been issued, the property gone into the hands of third parties, who have put up extensive works, and incurred large expenditures in its development. Frail, indeed, would the support of a patent be if testimony to such vague and loose conversations of a party not interested in the land in controversy at the time as owner could be received to impair the title of a bona fide purchaser from the patentee of the government, as the plaintiff in this case was. And yet, referring to it, the court below instructed the jury that it tended to prove knowledge of the existence of a lode equally in Moyer, the patentee, as it did in Stevens, thus assuming that it did prove such knowledge by Stevens; that no distinction could be raised between them; and that if the jury found that the existence of a lode was known to Stevens, they might find upon the same evidence that it was known to Moyer, the patentee. Dissenting Opinion: Field, Harlan, Brown, JJ. The record in this case affords a good illustration of what may be expected if loose testimony of the character mentioned can be received upon a trial of this kind. It contains a mass of hearsay testimony, irrelevant gossip, geological impressions of the neighborhood, and loose recollections of miners of what had transpired years before or of what they believed to exist, all mingled together and admitted by the court as going to prove the existence of a lode and knowledge of its existence. on the part of the placer applicant. If out of such materials a patentee can be deprived of his property years after the issue of a patent, that instrument will be worse than useless to him. It will prove a delusion and a snare, luring him on to large expenditures, only to make more complete his ultimate ruin. It will afford no security against mere surmises, suppositions and beliefs, but leave him to be overwhelmed by them. In my opinion the judgment should be reversed and a new trial awarded. On the 25th April, 1892, it was "Ordered by the court that the mandate in this cause be stayed; that notice be given to counsel for the defendant in error that an application for a rehearing has been made; and leave is hereby granted counsel on both sides to file printed briefs on or before the first day of the next term of this court upon the question whether a rehearing should be granted and the judgment be reversed and the cause remanded." IRON SILVER MINING COMPANY V. MIKE AND STARR GOLD AND SILVER MINING COMPANY. (No. 2.) BREWER, J. Case No. 3, between the same parties, presents the same questions, and the same judgment of affirmance will be entered therein. FIELD, J., dissenting. This case presents the same questions which are considered in the case of a similar title, No. 2, just decided, only that the former relates to the Goodell lode claim and the latter to the Gardener lode claim. The two cases were tried together upon the same testimony, subject to the same objections and exceptions, and the instructions given by the court were so worded as to apply to both. I dissent from the judgment in this case for the reasons expressed in my dissent from the judgment in the former case. Statement of the Case. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN and MR. JUSTICE BROWN Concur in this dissent. Mr. L. S. Dixon and Mr. Ashley Pond for plaintiff in error. James McKeen and Mr. Frank W. Owers were on their brief. Mr. T. M. Patterson for defendant in error. Mr. SULLIVAN v. IRON SILVER MINING COMPANY. ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. No. 7. Argued November 20, 23, 1891.- Decided February 29, 1892. A placer patent conveys to the patentee full title to all lodes or veins within the territorial limits, not then known to exist; and mere speculation and belief, based, not on any discoveries in the placer tract, or any tracings of a vein or lode adjacent thereto, but on the fact that quite a number of shafts, sunk elsewhere in the district, had disclosed horizontal deposits of a particular kind of ore, which, it was argued, might be merely parts of a single vein of continuous extension through all that territory, is not the knowledge required by the law. As the judgment in this case rests upon a sound principle of law, this court affirms it, although it was put, by the court below, upon an unsound principle. THIS was an action of ejectment, commenced in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado on the 5th day of March, 1883, by the defendant in error. The complaint alleged that on the first day of January, 1883, plaintiff was the owner and in possession of a tract of land in Lake County, Colorado, known as the Wells and Moyer placer claim, consisting of 1934 acres, the description of which was given in full; that while so in possession, and on the 2d day of January, 1883, the defendants entered upon a certain portion, which was fully described, being about ten acres, and wrongfully seized and detained the same. In their answer the defendants set forth that the plaintiff held title to the placer claim by a patent Statement of the Case. from the United States, of date March 11, 1879, which contained these restrictions and exceptions: "First. That the grant hereby made is restricted in its exterior limits to the boundaries of the said lot No. 281, as hereinbefore described, and to any veins or lodes of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposits which may hereafter be discovered within said limits, and which are not claimed or known to exist at the date hereof. "Second. That should any vein or lode of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper or other valuable deposits be claimed or known to exist within the above-described premises at the date hereof, the same is expressly excepted and excluded from these presents." They also averred that at the time of the location of the placer claim and the issue of the patent a vein or deposit of mineral ore in rock in place, of great value, was known and claimed to exist within the boundaries and underneath the surface of said placer claim, and that the patentee knew that said vein was claimed to exist, and did exist, within said premises; that the application for the patent did not contain any application for said vein or lode; and that on the 1st day of January, 1883, the defendants, citizens of the United States, went upon the premises and sunk a shaft thereon, and at the depth of more than ten feet from the surface cut and exposed said vein or deposit, and proceeded afterwards to file a location certificate. A demurrer to this answer was sustained, and judgment entered for the plaintiff. The defendants took the case on error to this court, and here the judgment of the Circuit Court was reversed. Sullivan v. Mining Company, 109 U. S. 550. The case turned on the construction of the pleadings, and it was held that the "allegation in the answer, that the vein was known by the patentees to exist at the times mentioned, is an allegation, in the very words of the statute itself, of the fact which the statute declares shall be conclusive against any right of possession of the vein or lode claim in a claimant of the placer claim only." No opinion was expressed on the question discussed by counsel, as to whether any other |