{
  "id": 1504001,
  "name": "Malecek v. Tinsley",
  "name_abbreviation": "Malecek v. Tinsley",
  "decision_date": "1905-01-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "610",
  "last_page": "612",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "73 Ark. 610"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "44 Ark. 74",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1893373
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/44/0074-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ark. 386",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1882946
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/29/0386-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Wall. 210",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wall.",
      "case_ids": [
        6138163
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/71/0210-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 U. S. 279",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 U. S. 357",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        5699182
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/132/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 U. S. 260",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        5633087
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/101/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 U. S. 744",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 U. S. 366",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ark. 263",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1326110
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/56/0263-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ark. 444",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1326166
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "499"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/56/0444-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Ark. 163",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1322314
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "213"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/55/0163-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ark. 442",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1320381
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/54/0442-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ark. 351",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723005
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "441"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/51/0351-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ark. 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1913433
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/52/0318-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 Ark. 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8720447
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/50/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 Ark. 293",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ark. 96",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1890471
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/46/0096-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Pac. 550",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 U. S. 303",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        5701126
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/160/0303-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Pac. 919",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 U. S. 318",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 U. S. 509",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3560409
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/144/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 How. 50",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "How.",
      "case_ids": [
        3488938
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/59/0050-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Fed. 99",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 Fed. 865",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Pac. 9",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "case_ids": [
        5380024
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ariz/3/0326-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 U. S. 392",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        3513864
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/115/0392-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 S. W. Rep. 772",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 Ark. 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1505596
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/72/0215-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 322,
    "char_count": 3646,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.723,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3545739539254991
    },
    "sha256": "3950924a4b58c8b6ea5011df541cf6438f0cabe94f51fe2b1189f9484c73af1f",
    "simhash": "1:3b2203515e8cdfd2",
    "word_count": 672
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:58:55.652140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Malecek v. Tinsley."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\nA. B. Tinsley and J. W. Black brought this action against Charles J. Malecek to recover possession of certain mineral lands. They allege that they are owners and entitled to possession under the mining laws of the United States, and that the defendant is in unlawful possession of their claim. They recovered judgment, and the defendant appealed.\nThey attempted to make a location by posting a notice on a house, in which they claimed to have located a mineral claim on the lands in controversy. No effort was made to distinctly mark the location on the ground, so that its boundaries can be readily traced. The notice did not contain \u201csuch description of tl\\e claim or claims located by reference to some natural or permanent monument as will identify the claim.\u201d\nIn order to acquire a mining claim, of any description, its \u201clocation must be distinctly marked on the ground, so that its boundaries can be readily traced.\u201d It is not shown that appellees did this, and they have no legal claim. Worthen v. Sidway, 72 Ark. 215, 79 S. W. Rep. 772. The appellant, at the time appellees attempted to locate a mineral claim, was in possession, and thereafter remained in possession, of the lands. He was holding and claiming possession under the mining laws of the United States. He made a location of a mineral cl\u00e1im on them, and caused the same to be marked on the ground by blazing trees along the lines and establishing monuments at the corners of the lands. He was developing his claim, and did as much as $500 worth of work. Saying nothing of the validity of his claim, appellees were not entitled to the possession, and cannpt maintain their action.\nReversed and remanded for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pace & Pace and John B. Jones, for appellant.'",
      "/. W. Black and A. B. Tinsley, per se."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Malecek v. Tinsley.\nOpinion delivered January 21, 1905.\nMining claim \u2014 notice.\u2014An attempt to locate a mining claim, without any reference in the notice to some natural or permanent monument that will identify the claim, is insufficient to convey any right.\nAppeal from Marion Circuit Court.\nErbridge G. Mitci-ierr, Judge.\nPace & Pace and John B. Jones, for appellant.'\nThe claim of Lock had been abandoned. Rev. Stat. U. S. \u00a7 2297; 3 L. L>. 526; 14 L. D. 49. Mineral lands can only be disposed of as the law directs. Rev. Stat. U. S. \u00a7 2258; 115 U. S. 392. A void patent may be attacked collaterally. 29 Pac. 9; 8 Fed. 865. In general, we apply to mines in public lands the rules applicable to real property. 42 Fed. 99; 18 How. 50; 144 U. S. 509. The location must be distinctly marked. 160 U. S. 318; Rev. Stat. U. S. \u00a7 2324. One cannot enter upon the possession of another and locate a mining claim. 10 Sawyer, 246; 2 Pac. 919; 160 U. S. 303; 24 Pac. 550. \u25a0\n/. W. Black and A. B. Tinsley, per se.\nThe question of marking boundaries not being in issue below, it cannot be here. 46 Ark. 96; 49 Ark. 293; 50 Ark. 97; 52 Ark. 318; 51 Ark. 351, 441; 54 Ark. 442; 55 Ark. 163, 213; 56 Ark. 444, 499; 56 Ark. 263. The statute points out plainly what lands are subject to appropriation. Rev. Stat. U. S. \u00a7 2319. The land department has absolute control of such lands, touching all questions concerning their charter. 132 U. S. 366. A homestead having been accepted and located, until avoided, is an entry, and segregates the tract from the public domain, precluding the claim of any one else to the land. 3 L- D. 447, 216, 218, 596; 92 U. S. 744; 101 U. S. 260. The timber culture entry was not void, but voidable, and, while of record, worked as a segregation of the land. 12 L. D. 346; 132 U. S. 357; 29 L. D. 279; 144 U. S. 279; 4 Wall. 210; 8 Otto, 118; 12 L. D. \u00bf1.88. Sunday contracts are void. Sand. & H. Dig. \u00a7 1887; 29 Ark. 386; 44 Ark. 74."
  },
  "file_name": "0610-01",
  "first_page_order": 632,
  "last_page_order": 634
}