Crawford

When this case was in Department the following opinion was rendered:—

The Department opinion is adopted, and in addition to what is there said, and in answer to the petition for rehearing, we will discuss other points.

The statement in the former opinion that the stakes placed by appellants were marked, one “N. E. corner section 32” and one “S. E. corner section 32,” is taken from the findings made by the trial judge and cannot be questioned by respondent on this appeal.

The late case of Oregon King Mining Co. v. Brown, 119 Fed. 48 , is in accord with the opinion of the Department. The case of McKindley Creek Mining Co. v. Alaska United, Mining Co., 183 U. S. 563 , is followed by the United States circuit court of appeals, and -in the opinion many authorities are cited, and it is said: “The statute under and by virtue of which such locations are made does not say that the boundaries shall be indicated by physical marks or monuments, nor in any particular or designated manner. The requirement is that the location shall be so distinctly marked on the ground that its boundaries may be readily traced. (See. 2324, Rev. Stats. U. S.—U. S. Comp. Stats. 1901, p. 1426.) It has been many…