COOK et al. v. KLONOS et al.

COOK et al. v. KLONOS et al. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. March 2, 1909.) No. 1,510. Mines and Minerals (§ 29) — Association Placer Claims — Fraudulent Location — Bights of Innocent Locators. Where the location of an association placer mining claim is invalid for fraud on the part of some of the locators, if the work has been kept up and the law and district regulations complied with, locators who were not implicated in the fraud, but acted in good faith, may individually select and hold their proportionate part of the land within the limits of the association claim. [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Mines and Minerals, Dec. Dig. § 29.] On rehearing. Denied. For prior opinion, see 164 Fed. 529. Before GIE.BERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges. For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes [MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.] PER CURIAM. The petition for rehearing is denied. We are satisfied with what is said in the opinion in respect to Barnette and the six absent locators; but a further examination of the record does not satisfy us that Cook and Ridenour were parties to the fraud. If they were not, and they joined in the location in question in good faith, and the ground was open to location, we think they are entitled to select 20 acres each within the exterior boundaries of the associated claim, provided they have continued to conform to the requirements of the statute and the local rules of the mining district. We accordingly modify our judgment so as to read: The judgment of the court below is affirmed as to the appellants A. T. Armstrong, W. H. Sumner, Y. L,. Newton, M. E. Armstrong, E. T. Selkirk, and A. R. Armstrong, and as to the appellants Henry Cook and J. C. Ridenour it is reversed, and the case remanded, with leave to them to file a supplemental bill, should they so elect, and in that event for further proceedings in accordance with the views here expressed.