Mining Claim—Location—Effect of State Law—Valid Local Bulbs. —The state law of March 27, 1897, respecting the contents of location notices, and the record thereof within limited periods, was valid as being a local regulation authorized by the act of Congress, and so long as it was unrepealed was obligatory upon locators of mining claims in this state. But if the Revised Statutes were otherwise complied with, a compliance with the state law might be had at any time while the statute was in force, if there were no intervening rights.

Id.—Void Technical Location.—A mere technical location of a mining claim during the existence of the state law, without compliance therewith, and without any attempt to work or develop the claim, in compliance with the Revised Statutes, is wholly invalid, and a deed thereof conveys no title.

Id.—Effect of Repeal upon Location Otherwise Valid—Actual Possession to Boundaries—Subsequent Location.—The repeal of the state law had the effect thereafter to dispense with its requirements, and work thereafter done under a prior location otherwise valid, and properly maintained under the Bevised Statutes, had reference to the boundaries marked in accordance therewith, and constituted actual possession of the claim to the extent of those boundaries, which precluded a valid conflict therewith under a subsequent location.

Id.—Action to Quiet Title—Findings against Evidence—Inconsistency—Decision against Law.—"Where the defendants in an action to quiet title claimed under a location of mining ground made while the state law was in force, but which was perfected by actual possession and work under the Revised Statutes after repeal of the state law, and plaintiff claimed under a subsequent location, held, that findings that the mining ground possessed by the defendants was public mineral land of the United States when plaintiff made his location, and that his location conflicting with defendants’ claim was valid, are against the evidence, inconsistent with other specific findings and with certain averments of the complaint, and also that the decision is against law, in failing to find upon the material issue whether defendants’ location was not perfected as a good claim prior to plaintiff’s location.

Id.—Case Distinguished.—The case of Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 270, distinguished, and held not to be controlling authority in support of the decision in favor of plaintiff’s location.