Chambers v. Brown
| Citation | 28 N.W. 561,69 Iowa 213 |
| Parties | CHAMBERS v. BROWN. |
| Decision Date | 18 June 1886 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Polk circuit court.
Action at law, to recover damages sustained by plaintiff by reason of defendant's violation of and refusal to perform a written contract to enter into a lease of certain coal lands for mining purposes. There was a judgment upon a verdict for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.Nourse, Kauffman & Guernsey, for appellant.
Parsons, Perry & Sherman, for appellee.
1. Defendant owned certain lands near the city of Des Moines, which it was believed were underlaid with coal in sufficient quantity to make its mining profitable. He entered into a contract with plaintiff, expressed in a written instrument, in the following language:
“DES MOINES, IOWA, December 14, 1883.
E. W. Chambers, Esq., City--DEAR SIR: You can prospect my land in south-east quarter of section 12, 78, 25, the same being one hundred (100) acres, more or less; and if you find coal that justifies putting a shaft down, I will, upon your request, execute to you a lease, giving you the exclusive right to mine the same for the next twenty (20) years, at a royalty of one-half cent per bushel for all coal mined, except the slack. You are to commence prospecting during the present month, and to put down a shaft of reasonable dimensions and capacity before the first day of November next. You are to guaranty a royalty of $1,500 per year, or surrender your lease.
+-------------------------------+
¦Very truly yours, ¦T. E. BROWN.¦
+-------------------------------+
P. S. Another lease will be made on my other adjoining lands on the same basis, should Mr. Chambers prospect, and desire to put a shaft down; and in either or both leases he is to have a reasonable amount of the surface for the purposes of operating his business of mining and shipping coal. Prospecting to be done, and shaft put down, within one year.
T. E. BROWN.
Twenty-seventh December, 1883.”
After the execution and delivery of the instrument to plaintiff he proceeded to explore and “prospect” for coal upon the land, by boring in the usual manner. Coal was discovered in quantities which would render mining profitable. The “prospecting” was done within the time prescribed in the instrument; but before the time allowed for putting down a shaft, defendant leased the land to another, or otherwise conferred the right to mine the coal to other parties. Plaintiff went upon the land to begin work in sinking the shaft, but he and his hands were compelled to leave it by defendant. He also made a demand of defendant for a lease, in pursuance of the written instrument executed by defendant above set out. Defendant refused to execute the lease, or to permit plaintiff to sink a shaft for mining. Plaintiff seeks in this action to recover the damages he has sustained by reason of the failure and refusal of defendant to perform his obligations expressed in the contract with plaintiff.
The defendant in his answer admits the execution of the instrument which is the basis of the action, but, as defenses thereto, alleges that one Miller was intended to be a party to the contract with plaintiff, and equally interested therein, and is therefore a necessary party to this suit. The answer admits that plaintiff and Miller did proceed to “prospect” for and “partially develop” the coal, but, failing to find it in sufficient quantity, did abandon the enterprise, and thereby released defendant of all obligation to execute a lease. It is also alleged that after plaintiff and Miller had abandoned the lands, defendant permitted other persons to develop the mines, who found coal upon the land in quantities justifying the prosecution of mining thereon.
2. We will proceed to the consideration of the objections to the judgment of the circuit court in the order of their discussion by defendant's counsel.
It is first insisted that the court below erred in refusing to set aside the verdict of the jury on the ground that it is not supported by the evidence. This objection is based upon the claim that the evidence shows that plaintiff abandoned the contract with plaintiff, and declared that he did abandon it, and did inform defendant and the other witnesses that he had done so, or intended to do so. The case is one of conflict of evidence, with the strong preponderance in favor of defendant,--three witnesses against one. But it cannot be claimed, and we do not understand counsel for defendant to claim, that there is no evidence to support the findings of the jury to the effect that there was no abandonment on the part of plaintiff. It rested with the jury to settle this conflict of evidence, and we cannot say that there was an abuse of sound, honest, and intelligent discretion in accepting the evidence of plaintiff as against the contradictory evidence. It may be remarked that there are matters which tend to support plaintiff's testimony. One only need be mentioned: Plaintiff had employed Miller to sink certain prospecting holes upon the land, and had advanced certain sums of money as the work was progressing, but not enough to fully pay for it. Defendant had paid to Miller, or to others, money to be used in payment of the work, and there was...
To continue reading
Request your trial