Opinion of the Court. sanctioned by all the officers of the government, is of much importance in the decision of this question." Our conclusion also accords with decisions of state courts, expounding similar words in other statutes. Young v. The Orpheus, 119 Mass. 179; Atherton v. Corliss, 101 Mass. 40; Levert v. Read, 54 Alabama, 529. Some expressions of judges of this court, not having this point before them, might seem to support the opposite conclusion, especially the language of Chief Justice Waite in Watt v. United States, 15 Blatchford, 29, decided July 1, 1878, and that of Mr. Justice Strong in Westray v. United States, 18 Wall. 322. But in Watt's case, the only question of time presented or considered related not to giving the collector notice of dissatisfaction with his decision, but to taking an appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury; and the adjudication of the Chief Justice that the collector's decision upon the rate and amount of duties, if not duly appealed from, was final and conclusive in a case where the duties had not been paid to obtain possession of the goods, but were sued for by the United States, was overruled, with his concurrence, in United States v. Schlesinger, 120 U. S. 109. And in Westray's case, the importer never gave any notice of dissatisfaction with the collector's decision, or took any appeal to the Secretary of the Treasury; and the only point adjudged was that the importer was not entitled to notice from the collector of his decision, before being bound thereby or required to give a notice of dissatisfaction or take an appeal. It was insisted by the Solicitor General that "the views of the Department, legally expressed, so far as they appear in the record, recognize the true interpretation of the statutes to be that the protest must be filed after the final ascertainment and liquidation of the duties." But the orders and circulars of the Treasury Department, given in evidence at the trial, either merely repeat the words of the act of 1864, without giving them any construction; or else clearly show that, from the time of the passage of that act until long after the entries now in question, the practical construction was to allow the notice of dissatisfaction to be Syllabus. given at any time after the collector's decision estimating the rate and amount of duty at the time of the entry of the goods, provided it was not given after ten days from the final ascertainment and liquidation of the duties as stamped upon the entry. The circular of the Treasury Department of September 30, 1878, and the opinion of the Attorney General to the Secretary of the Treasury of October 31, 1878, (16 Opinions of Attorneys General, 197,) requiring notices of dissatisfaction, under § 2931 of the Revised Statutes, to be filed after the final liquidation of the duties, were based on a misconception of the scope and effect of the decision in Watt's case, above cited. The circular of the Treasury Department of July 8, 1879, reëstablished the practice which, as therein stated, had prevailed before that decision at the port of New York "and all the other prominent ports of the United States, under which protests and appeals had been recognized, both by the customs officers and by this department, as valid if filed at any time before the expiration of the time mentioned in the section of law cited." And the old practice appears to have been since constantly recognized and acted on until 1886, when the Treasury Department again undertook to establish the opposite rule. Judgment reversed, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to set aside the verdict and order a new trial. HAMMER v. GARFIELD MINING AND MILLING COMPANY. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY OF MONTANA. No. 207. Submitted March 15, 1889.- Decided April 8, 1889. The modes of procedure in Montana being substantially the same at law and in equity, if the trial court there calls a jury in a case where the remedy sought is equitable, and the trial is conducted in the same manner as a trial of an issue at law, and there is a general finding by the jury, and the Opinion of the Court. case is brought here by writ of error, the finding will be treated here as if made by the court, and as covering all the issues; and the only questions which can be considered here are those arising from the rulings in the admission or rejection of evidence, and those respecting the inferences deducible from the proofs made. In the absence of a provision of statute in Montana respecting the manner of authenticating a copy of the certificate of incorporation of a corporation of a State, filed in the records of a county of Montana, the certificate of the original custodian in the State of origin, under his seal of office, is a sufficient authentication. The provision in Rev. Stat. § 2324, that records of mining claims shall contain such "reference to some natural object or permanent monument as will identify the claim," means only that this is to be done when such reference can be made; and when it cannot be made, stakes driven into the ground are sufficient for identification, or a reference to a neighboring mine, with distance and date of location, which will be presumed to be a well-known natural object in the absence of contradictory proof. The oath of one of the locators of a mining claim, accompanying the recorded notice of the location is, in the absence of contradiction, prima facie evidence of the fact of the citizenship of all the locators. It being established, in an action to quiet a mining title in Montana, that the plaintiff was in quiet and undisputed possession of the premises, the validity of his location not being questioned in the pleadings, and that the boundary of his claim was so marked on the surface as to be readily traced, this constitutes a prima facie case which can only be overcome by proof of abandonment, or forfeiture, or other divestiture, and the acquisition of a better right or title by the defendant. A forfeiture of a mining claim cannot be established except upon clear and convincing proof of the failure of the former owner to have work performed or improvements made to the amount required by law. THE case is stated in the opinion of the court. Mr. Edwin W. Toole and Mr. Joseph K. Toole for plaintiff in error. Mr. Eppa Hunton for defendant in error. MR. JUSTICE FIELD delivered the opinion of the court. This was a suit to quiet the title of the plaintiff below, the Garfield Mining and Milling Company, to a lode mining claim in Montana. It was brought under an act of the Territory providing for an action by any person in possession, by himself or his tenant, of real property, against any person who Opinion of the Court. claims an estate or interest therein adverse to him, for the purpose of determining such adverse claim, estate, or interest. Comp. Stats. 1887, § 366. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York for the purpose of carrying on the business of mining and milling ores bearing gold, silver, and other precious metals in Montana, and that it has complied. with all the laws of the Territory relative to foreign corporations; that it is the owner of a certain quartz lode in the county of Lewis and Clark, in the Territory, known as the Garfield lode or mining claim, which has been surveyed, and is designated upon the records of the office of the United States surveyor general of the Territory, and contains an area of twenty acres and of an acre, the metes and bounds of which are given; that the plaintiff and its predecessors in interest have been in the possession of and entitled to the lode ever since its discovery and location; that, notwithstanding its right to the possession, the defendant below, the plaintiff in error here, Auge O. Hammer, on or about the first of January, 1883, assumed to enter upon the premises and re-locate the same, and caused the re-location to be recorded in the records of the county under the name of the Kinna lode; that he pretends to claim an interest or estate therein adversely to the plaintiff, and has made application to the United States Land Office at Helena, in the Territory, for a patent therefor; that the plaintiff has duly filed in that office its adverse claim to the premises, setting forth its nature and origin; and that the proceedings in the Land Office have been stayed until the final determination by the court of the right of possession to the premises. Two other persons, by the names of Kinna and Bliss, are also made defendants, who, it is averred, assert some claim to the premises by a re-location at the same time with the defendant Hammer. The complaint alleges that the claims of all the defendants are without right, and that no one of them has any estate or interest in the mining ground nor in any part thereof. The prayer of the complaint is: Opinion of the Court. 1. That the defendants may be required to set forth the nature of their respective claims, and that all adverse claims be determined by a decree of the court; 2. That by such decree it be declared and adjudged that the defendants have not, nor has any of them, any interest or estate in or right to the possession of the premises or any part thereof, and that the title of the plaintiff to the same is good and valid, and that it is entitled to their possession; and, 3. That the defendants be forever debarred from asserting any claim whatever to the premises or any part thereof. All the defendants filed demurrers to the complaint, on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The defendant Hammer withdrew his demurrer and filed an answer. It does not appear from the record what disposition was made of the demurrer of the defendants Kinna and Bliss, but as they do not appear to have taken any further part in the defence of the action and are not mentioned in the judgment, or in the appeal taken to the Supreme Court of the Territory, it may be presumed that the action was discontinued as to them. The answer of Hammer denies that the plaintiff is the owner of the lode described in the complaint or of any part of it, or that it is now or has been for a long time in possession thereof, or of any part thereof, or that it or its predecessors in interest have ever since the discovery and location thereof been in possession of it or of any part thereof, or entitled to the possession thereof, or that the defendant at any time assumed to re-locate the premises, and to cause the re-location to be recorded in the records of the county, or that his claim is without right. The answer also sets up, that on the first of January, 1883, one Iner Wolf entered upon the premises described, the same being then vacant mineral land of the United States, and discovered thereon a vein or lode of quartz bearing silver and other precious metals, and named the same the Kinna lode, which he then located in accordance with the requirements of the law, and had a notice of the location filed for record with the county recorder; that afterwards the defendant became the purchaser of the premises from Wolf, and has ever since |