American Mining Company, Ltd. v. Trask
Decision Date | 30 December 1915 |
Citation | 28 Idaho 642,156 P. 1136 |
Parties | AMERICAN MINING COMPANY, LIMITED, a Corporation, Respondent, v. ESTELLE TRASK and GEORGE R. TRASK, Wife and Husband, Appellants |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
RESULTING TRUSTS-STATUTES OF LIMITATION-LACHES.
1. If one obtains title to land by artifice or concealment, equity will enforce a trust in favor of the party justly entitled thereto.
2. The knowledge of an officer of a corporation of his claim in fraud of its rights is not notice to the corporation of such claim.
3. Held, that this action is not barred by the provisions of sec. 4036, Rev. Codes, fixing the period of limitation of time within which actions for the recovery of real property or the possession thereof, may be commenced and maintained.
4. Independent of any statute of limitation, courts of equity uniformly decline to assist persons who have slept upon their rights and who show no excuse for their laches in asserting them, but this rule is not invoked or applied by courts in cases where it manifestly appears that its application is not essential in order to protect the adverse party from being placed in a worse condition by reason of the delay than he would have been had the action been prosecuted with greater diligence.
[As to enforcement in equity of stale claims, see note in Ann.Cas 1914B, 314]
APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District for Shoshone County. Hon. William W. Woods, Judge.
Action to have title to certain real estate standing of record in the name of Estelle Trask decreed to be held by her in trust for the use and benefit of the American Mining Company Limited. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.
Judgment of the trial court affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.
Franklin Pfirman, for Appellants.
No trust arises upon such a state of facts as is involved in this case. (Ducie v. Ford, 138 U.S. 587, 11 S.Ct. 417, 34 L.Ed. 1091; Stevens v. McChrystal, 150 F. 85, 80 C. C. A. 39.)
The knowledge acquired by Potter in May, 1906, must be imputed to the company of which he became president on June 30, 1906, as shown by the record. (Olympia Mining & Milling Co. v. Kerns, 24 Idaho 481, 135 P. 255; California Consol. Min. Co. v. Manley, 10 Idaho 786, 81 P. 50; 2 Pomeroy's Eq. Jur., secs. 666, 667, 672.)
In a suit to establish a resulting trust in mining lands, the contract sought to be enforced must be fully and clearly proved. A mere preponderance of the evidence is insufficient. (Rice v. Rigley, 7 Idaho 115, 61 P. 290; Nelson v. Hudgel, 23 Idaho 327, 130 P. 85; 3 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur., sec. 1058.)
Both express and implied trusts may be repudiated by adverse possession, and, if repudiated, the statute of limitations begins to run from the time the beneficiary has notice of the repudiation. (Olympia Mining & Milling Co. v. Kerns, 24 Idaho 481, 135 P. 255; Wood on Limitations, sec. 200.)
When one by his own carelessness or negligence fails to acquire knowledge that is within his reach, and such information is upon the proper records which impart constructive notice, the person cannot protect himself behind the plea that he did not know facts of which the law imputes knowledge to him and thus suspend the running of the statute. (Coe v. Sloan, 16 Idaho 49, 100 P. 354; 5 Pomeroy, Eq. Jur., sec. 27; Hecht v. Slaney, 72 Cal. 363, 14 P. 88; Board of Commrs. v. Renshaw, 23 Okla. 56, 99 P. 638, 22 L. R. A., N. S., 207, and cases cited in note.)
"Where the trial court fails to find on all the material issues, including those made by affirmative defenses, the judgment will be reversed, unless a finding thereon either for or against the successful party would not affect the judgment entered." (Carson v. Thews, 2 Idaho 176, 9 P. 605; Tage v. Alberts, 2 Idaho 271, 13 P. 19; Bowman v. Ayers, 2 Idaho 305, 13 P. 346; Standley v. Flint, 10 Idaho 629, 79 P. 815; Wood v. Broderson, 12 Idaho 190, 85 P. 490; State v. Baird, 13 Idaho 126, 89 P. 298; Brown v. Macey, 13 Idaho 451, 90 P. 339; Later v. Haywood, 14 Idaho 45, 93 P. 374; Village of Hailey v. Riley, 14 Idaho 481, 95 P. 686, 17 L. R. A., N. S., 86; Uhrlaub v. McMahon, 15 Idaho 346, 97 P. 784; Thomas v. Clayton Piano Co. (Utah), 151 P. 543; Griswold v. Winters, 26 Cal.App. 758, 148 P. 527; Lyden v. Spohn-Patrick Co., 155 Cal. 177, 100 P. 236; Kellogg v. King, 114 Cal. 378, 55 Am. St. 74, 46 P. 166; Duff v. Duff, 71 Cal. 513, 12 P. 570; 2 Spelling on New Trial and Appellate Practice, sec. 591.)
A. G. Kerns and W. W. Bixby, for Respondent.
The statute of limitations as between trustees and cestuis in cases of resulting trustees has no application, and laches do not apply in the circumstances of this case. (2 Perry on Trusts and Trustees, sec. 863; 1 Perry on Trusts and Trustees, secs. 124, 129, 227.)
The doctrine of laches, as understood in courts of equity, implies injury to the party pleading it as a defense. Where the situation of the parties has not been altered, and one has not been put in a worse condition by the delay of the other, the defense of laches does not generally apply. (Parker v. Bethel Hotel Co., 96 Tenn. 252, 34 S.W. 209, 31 L. R. A. 706; Hamilton v. Dooly, 15 Utah 280, 49 P. 769.)
When, therefore, the parties remain in the same relative position, and the delay has worked no serious wrong to the adverse party, so that justice can still be done, the claimant should not be refused relief on the ground of laches. (Just v. Idaho Canal etc. Co., 16 Idaho 639, 654, 133 Am. St. 140, 102 P. 381.)
This action was commenced by respondent, American Mining Company, Limited, a corporation, for the purpose of procuring a decree of the district court to the effect that title to certain real estate held by appellants in the name of Estelle Trask is so held in trust for the use and benefit of respondent and to procure a conveyance thereof to it.
Respondent, by deed dated November 11, 1899, and acknowledged and recorded in March, 1900, acquired the ownership, subject to the paramount title of the United States, of certain mining ground known as the "Kola Lode Mineral Claim," situated in Placer Center Mining District, Shoshone county, Idaho. It appears that a portion of the land embraced within the boundaries of this claim, upon which is located the mouth of the tunnel and the dump, was also embraced within the boundaries of what was known as "Granite State Mill Site," claimed by one Keane and one McDonald, and that McDonald, in 1901, applied for a government patent to it. It further appears that prior to the issuance of the patent the appellant, George R. Trask, who was vice-president of respondent corporation, threatened the owners of Granite State mill site that respondent would protest the application for patent and file an adverse claim unless its claim to the land in conflict was protected. Whereupon it was orally agreed that if no protest or adverse claim was filed, and if respondent would contribute $ 100 toward the expense of procuring the patent, the mill site claimants would, when patent was issued, deed to respondent that portion of the land within the mill site boundaries lying north of a certain creek, which tract includes the tunnel site and dump. No protest or adverse claim was filed and the patent to the mill site was duly issued. Neither the respondent nor its officers or agents contributed toward the expense of procuring the patent at the time it was procured, and the mill site owners declined to deed it the land in question, when requested so to do, claiming the offer to make payment, when it was finally made, came too late. A number of unsuccessful efforts were made by the officers of respondent to procure the conveyance to it of the land in question, and subsequently the owners of the mill site sold it, together with other property, to one Samuels and one Featherstone, who had organized, or were organizing, the Success Mining Company, and who had full knowledge of the claim of respondent that the land north of the creek should be conveyed to it.
The organizers of Success Mining Company desired to acquire certain mining ground which could be conveniently worked only by means of a tunnel, the portal of which was located upon ground owned by a corporation known as the "Belle of the West Mining Company." in which appellant, George R. Trask, was a stockholder, and as a part of the transaction whereby the Success Company acquired the mill site property, an agreement was reached whereby the Belle of the West Company was to deed to the Success Company the land occupied by the portal of the tunnel and the Success Company was to deed to the Belle of the West Company certain other land, and, while there is conflict in the testimony upon this point, the great weight of evidence supports the conclusion that it was also agreed that the Success Company should deed to respondent the land here in controversy which it was acquiring from the mill site company, and that it was upon the understanding and agreement that title to it should go to respondent that the transfers were made. With respect to this land Keane, one of the owners under the mill site patent, testified:
Mr Featherstone testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
First Nat. Bank of Wallace v. Callahan Mining Co.
... ... CALLAHAN MINING COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, and FRANCIS C. BOUTIN, JOHN H. ROBBERS and A ... ...
-
American Mining Co., Ltd. v. Trask
...156 P. 1136 28 Idaho 642 AMERICAN MINING COMPANY, LIMITED, a Corporation, Respondent, v. ESTELLE TRASK and GEORGE R. TRASK, Wife and Husband, Appellants Supreme Court of IdahoMay 3, 1916 [156 P. 1137] ... [Copyrighted Material Omitted] ... [156 P. 1138] ... APPEAL ... from the District Court of the First Judicial District for ... ...