How have courts interpreted the definition of a "mining claim" in the context of a claim for unpaid wages?

In Baker v. Waite (1958) 158 Cal.App.2d 379, 322 P.2d 512, in which the trial court found that the respondents were entitled to liens for unpaid wages arising from employment performed as miners, the appellate court elaborated on the contours of a "mining claim" and the definition of "mine." The appellate court explained the factual background: "Speaking generally, the area has long been known as one of the areas of the state producing chromite commercially and chromite had been mined therefrom at various times. The earlier operators had extracted chromite by methods which included both tunneling and open cut operations and had dumped tailings on the property and left them to lie there. A considerable part of the mining done by respondent and his assignors consisted in reworking the old tailings... ." (Id., at p. 381, 322 P.2d 512.) In response to a contention that the work done in reworking the old tailings was not work for which a lien can be allowed because such work would not constitute mining, the court ruled: "We think it must be held

[199 Cal.App.4th 827]