Bentley v. Brossard
Decision Date | 06 March 1908 |
Docket Number | 1851 |
Citation | 94 P. 736,33 Utah 396 |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Parties | BENTLEY v. BROSSARD et al |
APPEAL from District Court, Cache County; J. H. Howell, Presiding Judge.
Action by W. H. Bentley against A. Brossard and others. From a judgment for a part of defendants, plaintiff appeals.
REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL.
Booth Lee & Badger for appellant.
Nebeker Hart & Nebeker for respondents.
OPINION
This action was brought to recover the sum of $ 212 alleged to be due plaintiff from the defendants for labor performed on certain mining claims operated by the defendants. It is alleged in the complaint that the defendants entered into a contract in writing whereby they associated themselves together as copartners for the purpose of developing, improving and operating certain mining claims, naming them, known as the "Wakefield Group of Mines," situate near Tuscarora, Nevada, and for the purpose of extracting ore therefrom; that the defendants entered upon the work of developing and operating the properties and in carrying on mining operations thereon under their contract of partnership; that the plaintiff was employed by the defendants as an engineer to work upon the properties, and that in the course of his employment he performed labor thereon between the 1st day of August and the 23d day of September, 1903, at the agreed price of $ 4 per day; that there was due him and owing from the defendants and each of them the sum of $ 212. The defendants A. F. and O. A. Caldwell were not served with process, and no appearance was made by them. The other defendants answered, pleading the general issue. A trial was had before the court and a jury.
Some of the defendants reside at Logan, Utah, and the others in southern Idaho. The defendant Brossard, who had examined the group of mines, spoke to the other defendants about them. Thereupon Brossard, in October or November, went to Tuscarora, and there negotiated with L. Fannof, the owner of the group, for a lease, upon substantially the following terms: That Fannof was to deliver possession of the property to Brossard, who was to work and develop the claims in such manner as Brossard deemed proper; that Brossard was permitted to sell all the ores obtained from the mines while working them under the lease, and that the money received therefor should be disposed of as hereinafter stated; that Brossard should employ at least six men every twenty-four hours, and that three men should be kept at work on said mines each day, and three men each night; that the property should be worked in a workmanlike manner, etc., and that Fannof should not be responsible for the payment of the labor employed or material furnished, etc.; that all moneys derived from the sale of ores should be deposited with the First National Bank at Logan, and should be subject to the check or draft of Brossard, and that he should be permitted to use so much thereof as was necessary to pay all expenses, etc., and that all moneys derived from the sale of ores in excess of the expenses should be equally divided between Brossard and Fannof; that if the moneys derived from the sale of ores were not sufficient to pay for all the expenditures, etc., Brossard was required to pay them, and that Fannof was in no way to be held responsible therefor; that the moneys in excess of the expenses were to be kept and allowed to remain in the bank until the sum amounted to $ 20,000, when it was to be equally divided between them, in which event Fannof was required by a good and sufficient deed to convey to Brossard an undivided one-half interest in and to the group of mines; that Brossard also had the option at any time within the life of the contract to purchase an undivided one-half interest in and to the group for the sum of $ 10,000, and on the payment of which sum Fannof was also required to execute a conveyance to him of such undivided one-half interest; that the contract was to continue so long as the work was being performed under the terms of the contract, and until the conveyance of the one-half interest was made; that Brossard was given the right to abandon the work under the contract at any time; that if steam power should be used upon the property Fannof was to be employed as engineer at current wages; and that Brossard could not sublet or assign the contract without the consent of Fannof in writing. The contract contained other matters of minor importance not necessary here to mention. Shortly after the terms of this contract were agreed upon, but before the contract was signed, Brossard returned to Logan, and there exhibited a copy of the contract to the other defendants. Thereupon the defendants above named, in the early part of December, 1902, entered into the following contract:
At about the time of the making of the foregoing contract, and before the lease between Brossard and Fannof was actually signed, R. A. Caldwell, West, Blair, Hanson, and Brossard contributed $ 3,000. Brossard then departed for Nevada, and thereafter the lease was signed and executed on the 13th day of December, 1902. Brossard thereupon took possession of the properties and commenced work on the 15th day of December 1902, and with the moneys contributed and paid over to him he employed men, purchased supplies, etc., and commenced active operations. The work consisted in sinking shafts, running tunnels, and making cross-cuts in search of ores. In March, 1903, $ 2,000 more was contributed by the same parties and A. F. Caldwell. In May $ 2,500, and in June, 1903, an additional sum of $ 2,500, were contributed by the same parties and some others who had come into the association, making, in all, a total contribution of about $ 10,000. The record does not disclose the amount contributed by each, nor do we regard such fact material, in view of the issues presented by the pleadings and the questions involved in the case. The operation of the mines was continued until some time in September, 1903. All of the moneys contributed were used in paying men, in buying supplies, and in working and developing the mines. Brossard had charge of the work, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Long Island Lighting Co. v. Bokum Resources
...states do not require a sharing of profits or losses, citing Summers, Oil and Gas, §§ 721.1 and 724 (2d Ed.1980), and Bently v. Brossard, 33 Utah 396, 94 P. 736 (1908). Counsel for BRC suggest that Oklahoma, along with Kansas and Texas, are "oil" states, and that they are alone in the requi......
-
Ogden Packing & Provision Co. v. Wyatt
... ... partners." ... [59 ... Utah 495] In this connection respondent also cites and relies ... on 30 Cyc. p. 397; Bentley v. Brossard , 33 ... Utah 396, 94 P. 736; Booth v. Scott , 276 ... Mo. 1, 205 S.W. 633; Lyons v. Van Oel , 183 ... Iowa 114, 165 N.W. 376; ... ...
-
Rae v. Cameron
... ... State ex rel. Cole ... v. District Court, 79 Mont. 1, 254 P. 863; Lindley on ... Mines, 3rd ed., sec. 798; Bentley v. Brossard, 33 ... Utah 396, 94 P. 736. The interest in the mine must be owned ... in praesenti. This is one of the reasons why the so-called ... ...
-
Ellsworth Paulsen Const. v. 51-Spr-L.L.C.
...on a profit-sharing provision in the agreement as prima facie evidence that the parties agreed to share losses. See Bentley v. Brossard, 33 Utah 396, 94 P. 736, 741 (1908) ("[I]t has been quite generally held that an agreement to share profits, nothing being said about losses, amounts prima......
-
CHAPTER 1 LIABILITIES OF NONOPERATING INTEREST OWNERS
...at 195-200; Brimmer, supra note 1, at 88-89; 4 W. Summers, supra note 1, § 722. [9] See Fiske, supra note 1, at 196; Bentley v. Brossard, 33 Utah 396, 94 P. 736, 742 (1908); Lyons v. Stekoll, 186 Okla. 94, 96 P.2d 60, 62 (1939). [10] See Edwards v. Hardwick, 350 P.2d 495, 501 (Okla. 1960); ......
-
CHAPTER 7 LIABILITIES OF NONOPERATING OIL AND GAS INTEREST OWNERS
...at 195-200; Brimmer, supra note 1, at 88-89; 4 W. Summers, supra note 1, § 722. [9] See Fiske, supra note 1, at 196; Bentley v. Brossard, 33 Utah 396, 94 P. 736, 742 (1908); Lyons v. Stekoll, 186 Okla. 94, 96 P.2d 60, 62 (1939). [10] See Edwards v. Hardwick, 350 P.2d 495, 501 (Okla. 1960); ......