{
  "id": 8725268,
  "name": "Woody v. Bernard",
  "name_abbreviation": "Woody v. Bernard",
  "decision_date": "1901-10-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "579",
  "last_page": "581",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ark. 579"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "97 Fed. 386",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "case_ids": [
        3834196
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f/97/0386-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Sawy. 299",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Sawy.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Col. 443",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Col.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Fed. 336",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Cal. 363",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 345,
    "char_count": 5779,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3545892057799509
    },
    "sha256": "52f2877d060c6ffbce1d416c2b40b45ced88fd1b4b07b4dcfb0c584092032138",
    "simhash": "1:c6a287a628fe87d1",
    "word_count": 1010
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:09.426821+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Woody v. Bernard."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Burn, C. J.\nThe appellants on the 22d of February, 1897, located a mining claim, under the laws of the United States, on the land in controversy, the same being land of the United States. In 1898, appellants, in order to comply with the laws, and thus acquire title to said lands, performed twenty days\u2019 labor on said claim for the purpose of developing the same. In June, 1899, appel-lees, claiming to have purchased the interest of Murray & Sparks, former locators, took possession of the lands without the knowledge or consent of appellants, and commenced work thereon, and in July of the same year re-located the same, and subsequently made application for patents for the same. The appellants protested against the issuance of the patent, and brought this suit for possession. It was contended by appellants in the circuit court that they were allowed, under the mining laws, until the end of the year 1898 in which to make their assessment work, and that twenty days\u2019 work was equal to one hundred dollars\u2019 worth of work. This was denied by appellees, who contended that twenty days\u2019 work was not sufficient, and that the location of appellants expired at the end of the year 1898, and that the land was afterwards subject to relocation, and that they had re-located, as they had a right to do, by posting their location notice in June, 1899. Whether the claim of Murray & Sparks had been abandoned does not appear to have been a matter of controversy, and seems not to have been considered important, to determine the question at issue.\nVerdict and judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appealed to this court.\nThe testimony shows that the miners of Newton county had organized a \u201cminers\u2019 association,\u201d which association had established rules and regulations, or, as the appellants say, had- \u201cenacted laws\u201d to -govern the amount of work necessary to hold a mining claim, and to fix the price of labor per day, as follows: \u201cSection 8. In doing all assessment work in this district there shall be allowed $5 per day.\u201d It was shown in testimony that during the years 1897 and 1898 it was customary in that locality to- perform twenty-days\u2019 work, and count it $100.\nIf the local law is to be absolutely upheld, apj^ellants should prevail in this action; otherwise, not.\nThe statutes of the United States on the particular subject is as follows, to-wit: \u201cThe miners of each mining district may make regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States, or with the laws or the state or territory in which the district is situated, governing the location, maimer of recording, amount of work necessary to hold possession of a mining claim, subject to the following requirements: * * * On each claim located after the 10th of May, 1872, and until a patent has been issued therefor, not less than one hundred dollars\u2019 worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made during each year.\u201d Eev. Stat. U. S. \u00a7 2324.\n- The proof on the part of the plaintiffs in this case was that \u2022 they had performed twenty days\u2019 work on the claim, which, according to the rate fixed by the local \u201cmining association,\u201d would amount in the aggregate to $100, the required amount of labor. On the part of tbe defendant, tbe labor performed was shown to -have been really worth an amount greatly less than $100, to have been worth not exceeding $10. No effort was made to prove otherwise, except by the rate established by the mining association, which, of course, was an arbitrary rate.\nThe case of Bradley v. Lee, 38 Cal. 363, is cited by appellants in support of their contention that a rate fixed by the local miners\u2019 association is absolutely controlling. Quoting from the syllabus in that ease, the court said: \u201cThe true interpretation of the mining usage in the county of Nevada is that work to the value of $100, or twenty days of faithful labor performed on a claim or on any one of a set of adjoining and contiguous claims owned by the same party, is sufficient to hold the same for one year!\u201d It will be seen that the labor must really and actually be of the value of $100, and not merely to be counted as $100. In the case at bar the proof fails to show that the labor was really worth $100, or anything like it. The work done was therefore not that required by statute, and the claim on that account was in conflict with the laws of the United States. The regulations established by the miners\u2019 association did not, of themselves, render the claim void, but the condition upon which a patent would issue was never performed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Burn, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellants, pro se.",
      "Grump & Bailey, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Woody v. Bernard.\nOpinion delivered October 26, 1901.\nMines and Mining \u2014 Laboe and Impeovements. \u2014 Under Rev. Stat. U. S., \u00a7 2324, providing that \u201cthe miners of each mining district may-make regulations not in conflict with the laws of the United States, * * * subject to the following requirements: * * * On each claim located after the 10th of May, 1872, and until a patent has been issued therefor, not less than one hundred dollars\u2019 worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made during each year,\u201d a regulation of a local mining association that twenty days\u2019 labor on a mining claim shall be counted as worth $100 is void.\nAppeal from Newton. Circuit Court.\nE. G. Mitchell, Judge.\nAppellants, pro se.\nThe local law is binding, unless it conflicts with section 2324, Eev. Stat. TJ. S. There is no statute in Arkansas upon the subject. Cf. 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 559; 7 Fed. 336.\nGrump & Bailey, for appellees.\nAny _ rule, regulation or custom which attempts to make the manual labor on a mining claim less than $100 in actual value is void. Eev. Stat. IT. S. \u00a7 2324; Morrison\u2019s Min. Eights (10th Ed.), 86, 6; Barr. & Ad. Mines, 267, 274; 7 Col. 443 ; 6 Sawy. 299; S. C. 22 Meyer\u2019s Fed. Dec. 645, \u00a7 113; 97 Fed. 386."
  },
  "file_name": "0579-01",
  "first_page_order": 597,
  "last_page_order": 599
}