If two or more persons own any mine they shall be considered tenants in common. Any one or more such tenants in common shall have the right to enter upon, occupy, prospect, develop, and work said mine in a minerlike manner, extracting, milling, and disposing of the ore from the common property without the consent of any nonworking tenant in common, subject to accounting to the nonworking tenant in common for his proportionate share of the net profits of such mining operations.
Source: L. 23: p. 451, § 1. CSA: C. 92, § 8. CRS 53: § 92-23-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 92-23-1.
ANNOTATION
Joint mining adventure must have its origin in contract, although no particular form of expression or formality of execution is necessary, and a parol agreement is sufficient. Smaller v. Leach, 136 Colo. 297, 316 P.2d 1030 (1957).
Mining partnership exists by operation of law where the several owners of mine cooperate in working thereof, and one of the partners may not bind the others to third parties to the extent a general partner may do. Smaller v. Leach, 136 Colo. 297, 316 P.2d 1030 (1957).
It is not necessary that grubstake contract state interest of each of parties, the presumption being equal ownership. Smaller v. Leach, 136 Colo. 297, 316 P.2d 1030 (1957).
Mineral discovery not necessary. Where a contract between parties is to share in claims actually staked in an area found by use of an instrument by one of the parties, a "mineral" discovery is not required before the contract can become effective. Smaller v. Leach, 136 Colo. 297, 316 P.2d 1030 (1957).
Termination of prospecting partnership. In the absence of an agreement or circumstances indicating the contrary, a prospecting partnership terminates with the expedition undertaken pursuant thereto. Smaller v. Leach, 136 Colo. 297, 316 P.2d 1030 (1957).
Denial of profits when cotenant mines without giving notice. Latta v. Stout, 119 Colo. 257, 203 P.2d 496 (1949).