Opinion of the Court. the disposition of the government. The court also held that the lode claim was known to exist within the meaning of the statute when it had been located pursuant to its requirements, whether knowledge of its existence was possessed or not by the defendant at the time he made his application for a patent. These rulings constitute the only matters meriting consideration in this court. Section 2322 of the Revised Statutes, reënacting provisions. of the act of Congress of May 10, 1872, (17 Stat. 91,) declares that the locators of mining locations previously made or which should thereafter be made, on any mineral vein, lode, or ledge on the public domain, their heirs and assigns, where no adverse claim existed on the 10th of May, 1872, shall have the exclusive right of possession and enjoyment of all the surface included within the lines of their locations, so long as they comply with the laws of the United States, and with state, territorial, and local regulations, not in conflict with those laws governing their possessory title. There is no pretence in this case that the original locators did not comply with all the requirements of the law in making the location of the Pay Streak lode mining claim, or that the claim was ever abandoned or forfeited. They were the discoverers of the claim. They marked its boundaries by stakes, so that they could be readily traced. They posted the required notice, which was duly recorded in compliance with the regulations of the district. They had thus done all that was necessary under the law for the acquisition of an exclusive right to the possession and enjoyment of the ground. The claim was thenceforth their property. They needed only a patent of the United States to render their title perfect, and that they could obtain at any time upon proof of what they had done in locating the claim, and of subsequent expenditures to a specified amount in developing it. Until the patent issued the government held the title in trust for the locators or their vendees. The ground itself was not afterwards open to sale. The location having become completed in April, 1878, antedates by some months the application of the defendant for a patent for his placer claim. That patent was subject to the conditions of § 2333 of the Revised Statutes, which is as follows: Opinion of the Court. "Where the same person, association, or corporation is in possession of a placer claim, and also a vein or lode included within the boundaries thereof, application shall be made for a patent for the placer claim, with the statement that it includes such vein or lode, and in such case a patent shall issue for the placer claim, subject to the provisions of this chapter, including such vein or lode, upon the payment of five dollars per acre for such vein or lode claim, and twenty-five feet of surface on each side thereof. The remainder of the placer claim, or any placer claim not embracing any vein or lode claim, shall be paid for at the rate of two dollars and fifty cents per acre, together with all costs of proceedings; and where a vein or lode, such as is described in section twenty-three hundred and twenty, is known to exist within the boundaries of a placer claim, an application for a patent for such placer claim which does not include an application for the vein or lode claim shall be construed as a conclusive declaration that the claimant of the placer claim has no right of possession of the vein or lode claim; but where the existence of a vein or lode in a placer claim is not known, a patent for the placer claim shall convey all valuable mineral and other deposits within the boundaries thereof." This section was before us for consideration in Reynolds v. Iron Silver Mining Co. at October term, 1885, 116 U. S. 687; and also at the present term, 124 U. S. 374. As stated by the court at both times, it makes provision for three classes of cases: 1. When one applies for a placer patent, who is at the time in the possession of a vein or lode included within its boundaries, he must state the fact, and then, on payment of the sum required for a vein claim and twenty-five feet on each side of it at $5.00 an acre, and $2.50 an acre for the placer claim, a patent will issue to him covering both claim and lode. 2. Where a vein or lode, such as is described in a previous section, is known to exist at the time within the boundaries of the placer claim, the application for a patent therefor, which does not also include an application for the vein or lode, will be construed as a conclusive declaration that the claimant of the placer claim has no right of possession to the vein or lode. Opinion of the Court. 3. Where the existence of a vein or lode in a placer claim is not known at the time of the application for a patent, that instrument will convey all valuable mineral and other deposits within its boundaries. The section can have no application to lodes or veins within the boundaries of a placer claim which have been previously located under the laws of the United States, and are in possession of the locators or their assigns; for, as already said, such locations, when perfected under the law, are the property of the locators, or parties to whom the locators have conveyed their interest. As said in Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279, 283: "A mining claim perfected under the law is property in the highest sense of that term, which may be bought, sold, and conveyed, and will pass by descent." It is not, therefore, subject to the disposal of the government. The section can apply only to lodes or veins not taken up and located so as to become the property of others. If any are not thus owned, and are known to exist, the applicant for the patent must include them in his application, or he will be deemed to have declared that he had no right to them. Sullivan v. Iron Silver Mining Co., 109 U. S. 550, 554. When can it be said that a vein or lode is "known to exist" within the meaning of the section? In Reynolds v. Iron Silver Mining Company, when first here, the court said that it might not be easy to define the words "known to exist," and as it was not necessary to determine whether the knowledge must be traced to the applicant for the patent, or whether it was sufficient that it was generally known, and what kind of evidence was necessary to prove this knowledge, it was better that the questions should be decided as they arise. When the case was here a second time the court said that the language of the section appeared to be sufficiently intelligible in a general sense, and yet it became difficult of interpretation, when applied to the determination of rights asserted to such veins. or lodes, from the possession or absence of knowledge at the time application is made for a patent, and that if a general knowledge of their existence were held sufficient, the inquiry would follow as to what would constitute such knowledge, so VOL. CXXVII-23 Syllabus. as to create an exception to the grant, notwithstanding the ignorance of the patentee. These suggestions indicated the difficulties of some of the questions which might arise in the application of the statute; but in the present case we think that difficulty does not exist. Where a location of a vein or lode has been made under the law, and its boundaries have been specifically marked on the surface, so as to be readily traced, and notice of the location is recorded in the usual books of record within the district, we think it may safely be said that the vein or lode is known to exist, although personal knowledge of the fact may not be possessed by the applicant for a patent of a placer claim. The information which the law requires the locator to give to the public must be deemed sufficient to acquaint the applicant with the existence of the vein or lode. A copy of the patent is not in the record, so we cannot speak positively as to its contents; but it will be presumed to contain reservations of all veins or lodes known to exist, pursuant to the statute. At any rate, as already stated, it could not convey property which had already passed to others. A patent of the government cannot, any more than a deed of an individual, transfer what the grantor does not possess. Judgment affirmed. MOSLER SAFE AND LOCK COMPANY v. MOSLER. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO. No. 248. Argued April 24, 25, 1888. — - Decided May 14, 1888. Claims 1 and 2 of letters patent No. 281,640 granted to Moses Mosler, July 17, 1883, for an improvement in fire-proof safes, namely, "1. An angle bar for safe-frames, consisting substantially as before set forth, of a right-angled iron bar, one of the sides of which is cut away, leaving a curve facing the uncut side, whereby said uncut side may be bent to bear upon said curve to form a rounded corner. 2. An angle bar for safeframes, consisting, substantially as before set forth, of a right-angled Opinion of the Court. iron bar, one of the sides of which is cut away, with curved cuts meeting a right-angled cut, whereby the uncut side may be bent to forin rounded corners," and the claim of letters patent No. 283,136 granted to Moses Mosler, August 14, 1883, for an improvement in bending angle irons, namely, "The herein described process of bending angle irons, which consists in cutting away a portion of one web by a cut which severs the two webs at their junction, for a distance equal to the arc of the corner to be bent, and removes sufficient of metal in front of the single part of the uncut web to permit the same to bend to the desired angle and to msure the edges of the opening meeting to form a close joint as the bar is bent, substantially as shown and described," are invalid. After a patent is granted for an article described as made by causing it to pass through a certain method of operation to produce it, the inventor cannot afterwards, on an independent application, secure a patent for the method or process of producing the identical article covered by the previous patent, which article was described in that patent as produced by the method or process sought to be covered by taking out the second patent. The claim of letters patent No. 273,585 granted to Moses Mosler, March 6, 1883, for an improvement in fire-proof safes, being for the combination, in a fire-proof safe, of the frames, the sheet metal cover, bent around the top sides and lower corners, with projecting metal bars, and removable bottom plate, substantially as described, and claim 3 of letters patent No. 281,640, granted to Moses Mosler, July 17, 1883, for an improvement in fire-proof safes, namely, "3. In a safe, the combination of the front and back frames, formed of single bent angle bars, having one side cut away to leave curved ends, upon which the uncut side is bent to form rounded corners, and a metal sheet, E, bent around and secured to said frames to form the top end sides of the safe, substantially as described," are invalid. BILL IN EQUITY for the infringement of letters patent. Decree dismissing the bill. Complainant appealed. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. George J. Murray for appellant. Mr. James Moore for appellees. MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court. This is a suit in equity, brought in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio, by the Mosler Safe and Lock Company, an Ohio corporation, against Mosler, |