SLAVONIAN MINING 00. V. PERASICH. 331 �— the vacating of the order of satisfaction, — and is between the original parties ; no rights of third parties have inter- vened. 2 Jones, Mort. 1668. �I think, too, as was held in passing upon the demurrer, that section 1300 of the Compiled Laws of Nevada, which gives a remedy by petition to the purchaser at execution sale, on failure of title, etc., is a rule of decision, and that we are bound to carry it ont so long as the remedy provided is snb- stantially in accordance with the modes of equity procedure. �Motion denied. �Sawibb, C. J., coucurs. ���Slavomiam MiNiNa Go. v. Pebasich and othexs. �(Gireuit Court, D. Netada. May 16, 1881.) �1. MrNiHG Law—Ambndment— Section 2324, Rbv. St., Jasdakt 22, �1880. �Tfais amendment does not act retrospectively, so as to save a claim from a forfeiture incurred before its passage. �2. Bamb— Reix)Cation. �There cannot be any relocation, before the period within which work is required has expired, wbich can be made valid by a failure to work on the part of the original locators. �3. Same — Rebumptioh of Work. �There must be a bona fide attempt, at least, to resume. Threats seven miles from the claim, without any act towards carrying them eut, are not a sufflcient excuse for non-performance. �4. Bame — Same. �Hdd, also, that if the relocators had entered, and were in actual possession after a forfeiture, although they had not relocated, the original locators would have no right to make a f orcible entry for the purpose of resuming work. �George E. Harpham, for plaintiff. �Walter H. Tompkins and A, C, Ellis, for defendants. �HiLLYER, D. J. This is ejectment for a mining claim in Columbus mining district, Nevada. A jury has been waived by -written stipulation. It is submitted to the court mainly upon an agreed statement of f acts ; the only disputed f acts ��� �
