1. Minins Cuaims—Abandonment op Paet op Location.

When the vein passes out through one of the side lines of the claim, the locator may abandon all the ground beyond that point by drawing a new end line across the claim parallel to the original end line, although ho has previously made a survey and application for a patent. Mining Co. v. Sweeney, 4 C. C. A. 329, 54 Fed. 284, followed.

8. Same—Pktokity op Location-Judgment as Evidence.

In a suit to determine the right of possession as between two overlapping mining claims, the defendant withdrew its answer in open court, and judgment was entered for plaintiff, i editing the priority of its location. Defendant thereafter abandoned a portion of its claim, including the portion embraced in the judgment. Held that, in a subsequent action between the same parties in respect to ground not embraced in that judgment, the judgment was not admissible as evidence of priority of location.

3. Same—Ejectment—Evidence — Receiver’s Receipt and Register’s Certificate.

In a suit to determine the right of possession as between two mining claims, defendant withdrew its answer, judgment was rendered against it, and thereafter it abandoned a portion of its location, including the ground in dispute, and amended its application 1'or a patent accordingly. „ A receiver’s receipt and register’s certificate of entry were then issued for the remaining part of the location. Held that, as this ground was not involved in any controversy, the receiver and register of the land office had authority and jurisdiction to issue these documents, and the same were admissible as evidence of title in a subsequent action of ejectment. Mining Co. v. Rose, 114 U. S. 576, 5 Sup. Ct. 1055, distinguished.

4. Same. „

The validity of the receipt and certificate, and their effect as evidence of title, were not affected, as against third parties, by the fact that the locator, on abandoning a portion of his claim, did not have the government surveyor make a new survey, for which reason the land office suspended the issuance of a patent until an amended official survey was furnished.

5. Same—Priority of Location—Hqw Proved.

When, in following the dip of a vein, the owners of two claims come in conflict, priority of right is determined by priority of location; and, where a patent issued to one of the parties is silent as to the date of location, the same may be proved by testimony aliunde.