1. Mining Claims — Location.

One N. discovered a mineral-bearing lode, -and posted on the spot a notice claiming the rigid: to locate 1,500 feet on the lode and 300 feet on each side thereof, naming' it the “It. ,T. Lode,” and also claiming the right to have 20 days in which to complete his boundary monuments. He after-wards went to the premises to mark the boundaries, but was prevented by sickness, but within 20 days he agreed with three other persons to give them half the claim if they would complete the location, which they did by setting up monuments at the corners and .on the lines thereof, and posting a location notice, describing the same, in which the claim was called the “R. .T. Gold, Silver, and Nickel Quartz Mining Claim.” Held, that the location made by N.’s associates was a completion of the claim made by N., notwithstanding the addition of descriptive terms to the name of the claim in the notice posted by them. Newbill v. Thurston, 4 Pac. 409, 65 Cal. 419, disapproved.

2. Same.

Held, further, that the posting of the notice upon a single stake on the claim by N. was not a sufficient location of the claim and marking, of the boundaries thereof.

8. Same — 1Transfer op Rights.'

Held, further, that N. had a right to transfer by parol an interest in his right to locate his claim to his associates, and his doing so and permitting them to complete the location was not an abandonment of such right.

4. Same — Reasonable Time.

Held, further, that the discoverer of a mineral vein should have a reasonable time after his discovery to complete his location, the length of time depending on the character of the ground, the means of marking it, and the ability to ascertain the course or strike of the vein, and that in this case 20 days was not an unreasonable time, the vein being situated on a rough mountain side, the dip not exposed, and 1,000 feet of the vein covered.

6.'Same — Title op. Claimant — Act op March 8, 1881. ■

The provision in the act of March 3,1881 (1 Supp. Rev. St. p. 324), that if in any action brought pursuant to Rev. St. § 2326, title shall not be established in either party, a verdict shall be found accordingly, does not require that when title is established in one party the court shall determine ■ such party’s right to a patent, as against the United States.

6. Same — Citizenship op Stockholders op Corporation.

The citizenship of the stockholders of a corporation need not be proved, for the purpose of establishing its right to patent a mining claim, otherwise than by showing it to be organized under the laws of a state of which its stockholders are conclusively presumed to be citizens.

7. Practice on Appeal — Assignment óp Error.

An assignment of error stating that “there is error in said decree in this: that said court, upon the whole evidence, should have rendered a decree in favor of the complainant,” is too general, and cannot be aided by an attempt to make the same more particular in the brief.