Brooks v. Laurent

• Citation: 98 F. 647
• Decision Date: 19 December 1899
• Docket Number: 872.
• Parties: BROOKS et ux. v. LAURENT.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

98 F. 647

BROOKS et ux. v. LAURENT.

No. 872.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

December 19, 1899

Herbert L. Anderson, for appellants.

John G Reardon, for appellee.

This litigation was begun by an original bill in chancery, filed in the state circuit court of Florida on September 17, 1897. The complainants were William M. Brooks and his wife, Sue G Brooks, citizens of Florida, and the defendants were Achille Laurent and Leon Laurent and Paul Jumeau, agent of the former, citizens of the republic of France. The bill alleged that on April 10, 1895, William M. Brooks leased in writing to one W. A. Fulton a certain tract of land in Florida for the purpose of mining and shipping phosphate rock; that on April 17, 1895, the said William M. Brooks consented to the transfer of Fulton's interest as lessee to Achille Laurent, which was done by a written instrument of that date that 'on February 14, 1895, the complainant Sue G. Brooks became the owner of this land, and was at the last-mentioned date in possession of it, and assented to its transfer by said Fulton to said Achille Laurent, and she authorized and assented to the making of the lease by the complainant William M. Brooks to said Fulton'; that Achille Laurent and Leon Laurent had knowledge of the ownership and possession of the land, but on March 31, 1897, Achille assigned his interest to Leon without the consent of Brooks and wife; and that Achille Laurent took the lease from Fulton, subject to the terms and conditions of the original lease, for the purpose of mining and shipping phosphate rock. The bill further alleged that under the lease all phosphate rock analyzing 75 per cent. of bone phosphate of lime and manner by the usual approved methods; that Laurent should pay $1 per ton, and mine not less than 7,000 tons per year, or pay not less than $7,000 yearly as royalty; that he should settle the claim of the Brooksville State Bank against the land for $10,000, and advance to the said William M. Brooks $4,000, and charge the same, with interest at 10 per cent., against the royalties; that mining could be suspended when the price fell below $4 per ton; that the contract should be forfeited upon a breach of the conditions. The bill alleged that Laurent had failed to mine said land in a workmanlike manner by the usual approved methods; that only a part of the phosphate had been mined; that the gravel rock had been allowed to go to waste; that no machinery was erected until March, 1897, and that for a part of the time mining had been stopped, notwithstanding phosphate rock was worth $4 per ton at the time; they have commenced an action at law. The bill charged Achille Laurent with fraud in procuring the lease from Fulton, by the settlement with the bank, and by the delay in mining in order to prolong the payment by William M. Brooks of the interest, and deprive him of the rents. The bill also alleged that there was plenty of available phosphate to be mined, and that much more should have been mined; that the contract between Laurent and Fulton was a novation, and discharged Brooks from any liability for the bank settlement; that the assignment of Achille to Leon was fraudulent, and forfeited all rights in the lease to Brooks, and made a cloud on the title to the land; that the rent or royalty due to the complainants was unpaid, and that, after a reasonable time, the complainants entered and took possession of the premises; that the defendant Paul Jumeau attempted by force to regain possession, but without success; that complainants feared that said Jumeau would attempt to obtain possession by violence. The bill prayed that the original lease be canceled and.surrendered, that the defendants be decreed to pay the rent due by them of $1,935, and expenses and damages of the suit at law, and for an injunction and process. The bill was sworn to by both William M. Brooks and wife. An injunction was granted on a bond for $100. The state circuit court having jurisdiction of the cause, on motion of the defendants for a dissolution of the injunction, ordered the same dissolved, unless complainants gave bond for $5,000 within 10 days. On October 12, 1897, the court, upon proper notice and bond filed, granted the petition of the defendants to remove the said cause to the circuit court of the United States for the Southern district of Florida, and the record of the former proceedings in the state court was filed on October 22, 1897, in said United States court.

October 27, 1897, the defendants demurred to the bill, and on November 26, 1897, filed their answer to it. The answer admitted the original lease from Brooks to Fulton, and its transfer to Achille Laurent with the assent of Sue G. Brooks, but otherwise pleaded ignorance of the ownership of the land. It admitted the assignment from Achille to Leon Laurent, without the consent of the complainants, but alleged that the complainants did not object to the same. It denied that Achille Laurent took lease from Fulton subject to all the conditions of the original lease from Brooks, but alleged that, under the wording of the assignment from Fulton, Achille Laurent had the right to assign the lease to any other person. It denied that the transfer from Achille to Leon was fraudulent, or a breach of the conditions, or worked a forfeiture, or created a cloud on the title. It alleged that the assignment to Leon Laurent was recorded on April 12, 1897, but that previous to the filing of the bill the complainants made no objection to the same, and now objected as a pretext for claiming a cancellation of the lease. It alleged that Achille Laurent anticipated the action for the complainants in procuring the reassignment of the lease from said Leon to him, and he now owns the same. It alleged that the charges in the bill of not running in a workmanlike manner with approved machinery are without merit; that Achille Laurent continued to mine the phosphate with the same machinery formerly used by Brooks, and paid him rent for it, which was cheerfully received without objection; that the lease did not call for any special machinery. It admitted the amount of phosphate alleged in the bill to have been mined, and alleged that a plant was begun in November, 1896, and completed in March, 1897. It admitted that no mining was done between May and November, 1896, but denied that 75 to 100 tons could not have been mined, as claimed, and denied that 1,000 tons of gravel were going to waste. The answer further alleged that the plant erected is as good as the best in use, and that 30 tons per day is fair average running. It denied that the complainants have been damaged to the extent of $10,000, or any other sum, by the fact set out in the bill. It denied that the mining was delayed in order to deprive the complainants of royalties, or to charge up interest in the settlement with the Brooksville State Bank, and alleged that such a course would be unreasonable, because the interest on the plant and the expenses of the same would exceed the interest due by the complainants. It alleged the right to suspend mining when the price of phosphate fell below $4 per ton. The answer further alleged that the plant was erected at a cost of $7,000, and that during its erection no complaint was made about not mining, and the expenditure was encouraged; that from March until June 10, 1897, the new plant mined and washed 3,897 tons, but it was then stopped for the repair of broken machinery; that on June 15, 1897, Brooks sued out a distress warrant for $1,935 for the rent of said lands, and the same was levied on the phosphate mined and on the mining plant erected by the defendant; that defendant traversed affidavit in distress, and said cause stands for trial; that the distress proceedings and levy were a great wong on the defendant, and the possession of the plant by the sheriff was illegal; that about this time W. A. Fulton began proceedings in chancery, in Citrus county, Fla., to dissolve and wind up the alleged partnership between him and the defendant, asking for a receiver, and obtained an injunction against the sale of phosphate; that, as soon as the defendant effected an amicable settlement with said Fulton, the defendant tendered a sufficient bond to the sheriff, who refused to accept the same until September 18, 1897, after service of the writ of injunction herein; that the sheriff claimed possession of said premises until said date, and refused to deliver the same to said agent, Jumeau, until he had approved said replevin bond, and obtained pay for his deputy from said Jumeau. The answer further alleged that the defendant, Laurent, was entirely willing to go on mining, notwithstanding the price of phosphate, and would have mined in July, and since then, but for the suits at law and in equity; that he instructed his agent, Jumeau, to go to work as soon as possible, and charged that the complainants are alone responsible for the delay in mining. The defendant, Achille Laurent, denied that any royalty is due for the use of said land, but alleged that he advanced $14,000 on royalties, and that there was due him on such advance about $8,000 at the time of the institution of distress proceedings; that no demand was made upon him for any rents, or any notice given him of such claim, prior to the beginning os said suit; that the complainants fraudulently and wrongfully obtained possession of said leased premises, and all charges that said Jumeau attempted to get possession by force and arms are false and absurd; that on September 13, 1897, said Jumeau went by accident upon said land, without any unlawful intent, and was assaulted and beaten by said deputy sheriff, who threatened with a gun to shoot said Jumeau and one Patterson; that the defendant did not know whether said...