I concur in the conclusion reached in the foregoing opinion for the reason stated therein. One fact which leads me to this conclusion, and which is not stated in the opinion, is that the lode which was advertised and sold was described as Survey 132, Crowley Lode; whereas, the property sought by this proceeding to have conveyed is the Crowley Lode, Survey No. 131. It often happens that mining claims of the same name have different numbers. *Page 329