Carter

— This was an action to determine the right to a mining claim. The defendant had judgment, and the plaintiffs appeal. The main points made for the plaintiffs relate to the sufficiency of the location of the defendant’s grantor and the sufficiency of the transfer to the defendant.

1. It was conceded at the trial that the plaintiffs’ locations were properly made and maintained, if the ground was open to location. The defense was, that the ground was not open to location, because the defendant had a pi’ior valid and subsisting claim. And the question is whether he had such a claim.

The provision of the federal statute of May 10, 1872, in relation to the matter is as follows:—

And then follows a requirement as to the amount of work w'hich shall be done.

This statute does not require that a notice shall be recorded. (Thompson v. Spray, 72 Cal. 533 ; Souter v. Maguire, 78 Cal. 544 .) Nor does it require that a notice shall be posted on the claim. It leaves those matters to the regulation of the local laws. The local laws gener *189 ally require that a notice shall be posted, and even in the absence of such a requirement it would be a very proper aid to the description. But the…