The relocation of abandoned lode claims shall be by sinking a new discovery shaft and fixing new boundaries in the same manner as if it were the location of a new claim; or the relocator may sink the original discovery shaft ten feet deeper than it was at the time of abandonment, and erect new or adopt the old boundaries, renewing the posts if removed or destroyed. In either case a new location stake shall be erected.
Source: L. 1874: p. 189, § 16. G.L. § 1825. G.S. § 2411. R.S. 08: § 4211. L. 11: p. 515, § 2. C.L. § 3293. CSA: C. 110, § 183. CRS 53: § 92-22-16. C.R.S. 1963: § 92-22-16.
ANNOTATION
Relocation of abandoned mining claim is made in substantially same manner as original location thereof. Armstrong v. Lower, 6 Colo. 393 (1882).
Recording claim on territory overlapping abandoned claim not relocation of that claim. The surveying, staking, and recording of a location certificate of territory previously located, which overlapped the territory of the abandoned claim, does not constitute a relocation of that claim. Omar v. Soper, 11 Colo. 380, 18 P. 443 (1888).
No relocation possible where alleged owners in possession of claim. Where defendants were in actual possession of a mining claim, and engaged in developing it, claiming to be the owners, plaintiffs cannot initiate a title thereto by a survey and the recording of a location certificate. Omar v. Soper, 11 Colo. 380, 18 P. 443 (1888).
Abandonment of property question of intention. A transaction affecting property may be irregular; but if the owner does not intend to abandon it, and continues in possession, claiming in good faith to be the owner, no abandonment can take place. Omar v. Soper, 11 Colo. 380, 18 P. 443 (1888).
Original owner cannot perfect relocation after his own delinquency. To say that the original locator has the power within himself to make effectual a forfeiture arising from his own delinquency by perfecting a relocation is to place in his hands the extraordinary privilege of holding mineral lands perpetually without doing any of the work whatever. Ingemarson v. Coffey, 41 Colo. 407, 92 P. 908 (1907).