Gray v. Quicksilver Mining Co.
Decision Date | 24 June 1895 |
Citation | 68 F. 677 |
Parties | GRAY et al. v. QUICKSILVER MIN. CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Pierson & Mitchell, for complainants.
Wm Matthews and E. J. Pringle, for respondent.
This is an action to declare defendant trustee of the plaintiffs, or the estate of their intestate, of certain mines and minerals situate on the Rancho De Los Capitancillos (what is known as the 'Almaden Mine '). Both plaintiffs and defendant claim from the Mexican government, through a grant by the latter to one Justo Larios, which grant was patented by the United States in the name of Charles Fossatt, by patent dated February 3, 1865. The patent to the mines and minerals became separated from the title to the land, or was attempted to be separated, by Grove C. Cook, grantee of Justo Larios, calling himself 'allodial owner' of the rancho, by conveying by deed dated April 1, 1848, to plaintiff's intestate John B. Gray, and one Knowles Taylor, in the proportions of two-fifths and three-fifths, respectively, 'together (to quote deed) with the right of way, water, grazing for cattle * * * also land sufficient for establishing smelting works building houses, and all other purposes necessary for the secure and profitable carrying on of the aforementioned mines.'
A trust was declared and created in this property by an instrument dated March 21, 1850, in which it was recited, after setting out certain conveyances, as follows:
In January, 1853, Taylor died, leaving Walker and Gray surviving; and on June 2, 1861, Gray died in New York, intestate, leaving plaintiffs as his only heirs at law. Walker is also dead. Prior to his death, he conveyed his individual interest under the trust deed,-- that is, his interest seperate from that as trustee,-- and the defendant became the owner of it. The defendant also claims to be the successor to the title and interest of Forbes, Baron & Co., the old Almaden Company, and the evidence seems to establish that the latter occupied and exclusively worked the mines for years; in hostility to the Laurencel & Eldridge title, under which plaintiffs claim. On the 10th of October, 1863, Christopher E. Hawley presented a petition to the probate court of the county of Santa Clara, setting forth the death of John Bowie Gray; the fact that the names, ages, and residences of the heirs were unknown to him; that the deceased died intestate, owning in fee at the time of his death 111 2/100 equal undivided four-hundredth parts of, in, and to all the 'mines, minerals, and ores, of whatever character or description, that were found on the 1st day of April, A. D. 1848, or that have since been found, or that hereafter may be found, in the tract of land in said state and county in the rancho called 'De Los Capitancillos,' formerly granted to Justo Larios, together with certain rights, privileges, and appurtenances as the same were granted by Grove C. Cook and wife to Knowles Taylor and said deceased John Bowie Gray, by conveyance dated the 1st day of April, 1848; the said property described in said conveyance with certain other property having been by a certain indenture conveyed to Knowles Taylor, John Bowie Gray, and R. J. Walker in trust,' etc. He was appointed November 10, 1863, and qualified February 25, 1864, by giving a bond of $16,200, and letters of administration issued to him on the 25th. Notice to creditors was ordered, and appraisers were appointed, and estate duly appraised at $11,00, on May 2, 1864. Claims aggregating $106,529.24 were presented and duly allowed; and, after due proceedings were had, the interest of said Gray in said mines and minerals was sold to Henry O. Lyons for $27,755, which sale was confirmed by the probate court, and deed executed. Lyons deeded to Butterworth, and the latter to defendant. Hawley was the engineer of the defendant company, and Butterworth was its superintendent.
The claims presented against the estate were as follows: Sidney L. Johnson, $48,617.93; Quicksilver Mining Company $49,579.31; George Flemming, $916.87; Andrew Glassell, $7,416. Sidney L. Johnson's claim was composed of the principal and interest of four notes of $5,000 each, given by one Middleton to Gray, and by the latter to Robert J. Walker, and a note of $10,000 given by Gray to Middleton, and indorsed by the latter to Walker. The $5,000 notes were secured by a mortgage, executed in favor of Walker, by Gray, Middleton, and Walker. There was also attached to the claim, as a voucher, a complaint in a suit brought by Robert J. Walker against Henry H. Taylor, John W. Middleton, et al. This complaint recited the conveyance from Grove C. Cook to Gray and Taylor. The declaration of trust in the property, quoting the substance of the trust deed, states the papers upon which the purchase was made, and the difficulties and controversies over the title and lawsuits conducted by Walker, 'at the wish (to quote the complaint) of Gray,' for which he was to be liberally compensated, and also states the necessity and fact of employing other counsel, the incurring of indebtedness, and disbursing large sums of money. The legal controversies over and in defense of the property are enumerated in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Simmons v. Friday
...270 Mass. 497, 170 N.E. 451; Bremer v. Williams, 96 N.E. 687, 210 Mass. 256; Yager v. Liberty Royalties Corp., 123 F. (2d) 44; Gray v. Quicksilver Co., 68 F. 677; Peyton v. Chase County Natl. Bk., 262 Pac. 595, 124 Kan. 763; Bates Co. v. White, 156 Atl. 293, 130 Me. 352; Homer v. Ward, 65 M......
-
MacFadden v. Jenkins
...... 99 N.W. 759; Copsey v. Bank (Cal.) 66 P. 8;. Clark v. Eaton, 100 U.S. 146; Gray v. Mining. Co., 68 F. 677-682; Davis & Co. v. Wagon Co., . 20 F. 699; Monongahela Bridge Co. v. ......
-
Simmons v. Friday
...270 Mass. 497, 170 N.E. 451; Bremer v. Williams, 96 N.E. 687, 210 Mass. 256; Yager v. Liberty Royalties Corp., 123 F.2d 44; Gray v. Quicksilver Co., 68 F. 677; Peyton Chase County Natl. Bk., 262 P. 595, 124 Kan. 763; Bates Co. v. White, 156 A. 293, 130 Me. 352; Homer v. Ward, 65 Mass. 62. (......
-
Crawford County Bank v. Bolton
...26 Am. & Eng. Enc. of L. 899-900; 7 Id. 634; 122 Ill. 293; 4 Ark. 357; 15 Am. & Eng. Enc. of L. 934; 63 Ark. 322; Morawetz on Corp. § 521; 68 F. 677. 2. validity of the sale can not be attacked in this proceeding. The sale was, at most, voidable, and could be avoided by appellee, if at all,......