1. Judgment — Res Judicata— Conflicting Mining Claims.

The Tyler M. Co. applied for a patent to the Tyler mining claim. The Last Chance M. Co. protested against such application, and brought suit to determine the right of possession to so much of the surface ground as was included in the conflicting locations of the Tyler and Last Chance claims, as shown upon the diagram in the opinion of the court. The Tyler M. Co., after appearing and making a defense to said suit, withdrew its answer in open court, and judgment was entered for the Last Chance M. Co., reciting the priority of its claim. Subsequently the Tyler M. Co. left out from its original location a certain portion thereof, including the portion described in said judgment, and thereafter brought an ejectment suit against the Last Chance M. Co. for the ground not embraced in said judgment. Held, that the judgment in the prior suit was not res adjudicate as to the priority of the Last Chance location, and that it was conclusive only as to the right of possession to the triangular piece of ground involved in that suit.

¾. Same — Parallelism — Right, to Follow Dip — Abandonment of Part of Claim.

The fact that -the Tyler withdrew its answer in the prior suit, and allowed the Last Chance to obtain judgment therein by default, did not have the effect of changing the Tyler location to a five-sided figure, so as to destroy the parallelism of the location, as required by section 2320, Rev. St.; or to prevent the Tyler company from thereafter claiming its end- line to be at a point which left out the ground in dispute in the former suit; or to deprive it of the right to follow the dip of its lode beyond its side lines, as provided by section 2322, Rev. St. A locator of a mining claim may abandon a portion of his original location without forfeiting any rights he may have to the balance of the claim.

3, Same — Lode Crossing Side Lines.

Under Rev. St. §§ 2320, 2322, the owner of a mining claim located approximately lengthwise of a lode, and having parallel end lines, may, if the apex passes out of the claim across a side line thereof, follow the dip beyond the side line, the same as if one original end line had been drawn at such crossing parallel to the other end line. King v. Mining Co., (Mont.) 24 Pac. Rep. 200, approved.

Same — Location of Claim across the Lode.

Where a mining claim is located so that the lode crosses the side lines nearly at right angles, the location is a valid one, but the side lines should be taken as end lines, and the owner has no right to follow the dip beyond them. Argentine Min. Co. v. Terrible Min. Co., 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1366, 122 U. S. 478, followed.

6. Same — PrtorÍty.

When a claim is located along a lode, and its owner’s right to follow the dip beyond the lateral lines conflicts with the right of an owner of a claim located across the lode to the portion thereof a.ctually within Ms lines, the claim having priority of location should prevail.