Easton v. Brant

Decision Date31 May 1927
Docket NumberNo. 5033.,5033.
PartiesEASTON v. BRANT et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Melville P. Frasier, of Los Angeles, Cal., Edgar E. Hendee and William H. Wylie, both of San Diego, Cal., and Homer C. Mills, of Los Angeles, Cal, for appellant.

E. E. Millikin, Joseph L. Lewinson, and O'Melveny, Millikin & Tuller, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellees.

Before HUNT, RUDKIN, and DIETRICH, Circuit Judges.

RUDKIN, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a final decree dismissing a complaint in equity. The issues in the case are very simple; the questions involved are questions of fact only, and any attempt on our part to review the voluminous testimony or set forth in detail the many collateral issues brought into the case would serve no purpose.

In 1910, the Imperial Valley Land & Irrigation Company of Lower California purchased 32,000 acres of raw land in Mexico from the Colorado River Land Company for the sum of $1,200,000. A part of the purchase price was paid in cash and the balance was secured by mortgage on the granted lands. The cash payment seems to have been made by one Cudahy, who had arranged in some way with the appellant, Easton, to finance the Imperial Valley Company and take in return 75 or 80 per cent. of its capital stock. Differences thereafter arose between Easton and Cudahy, which are not material here. These differences were settled and compromised by a transfer of one half of the 32,000 acres to Cudahy individually; the title to the other half remaining in the Imperial Valley Company. Later the Imperial Valley Company sold 1,000 acres of the land, so that for some time prior to July 1, 1915, that company owned the remaining 15,000 acres, subject to a mortgage in favor of the Colorado River Land Company in the sum of $325,000, due July 1, 1915. Easton at that time owned all of the capital stock of the Imperial Valley Company. In 1915, the time for the payment of the mortgage debt was extended for a period of two years, because of certain difficulties encountered in securing the recordation of the conveyance in accordance with the laws of Mexico. This two-year extension was procured largely through the instrumentality of O. F. Brant, now deceased. The extension period expired on July 1, 1917, and, while Grant favored a further extension, the officers of the mortgagee were unwilling to grant it.

Under date of November 21, 1917, Brant made a proposition to Easton in the form of an escrow agreement, whereby Gen. M. H. Sherman, Harry Chandler, one Lindsay, and Brant would purchase from Easton the entire capital stock of the Imperial Valley Company, paying therefor the sum of $17,500 in cash and conveying to Easton a tract of some 440 acres of land owned jointly by Sherman, Chandler, Lindsay, and Brant. After due consideration, Sherman, Chandler, and Lindsay refused to agree to this proposition, feeling that they would be subject to criticism as officers or stockholders of the mortgagee, if they became purchasers of the mortgaged premises without paying the mortgage debt, and that they were not then prepared to do. Thereafter Brant, on November 28, 1917, substituted his home place in Los Angeles for the 440-acre tract; the deal was consummated, the home place was conveyed by Brant to Easton, and the $17,500 cash payment was made. At the same time the Imperial Valley Company stock was transferred to Brant. Later Easton conveyed the Brant home to the Engineering Exploration Company, Limited, a corporation under his control. The Exploration Company mortgaged the property for the sum of $15,000, which was paid to Easton, and rental in the sum of $250 per month was paid by Brant to Easton, or to the Exploration Company, from the date of the transfer until the property was reconveyed to Brant by the Exploration Company on April 1, 1919, subject to the $15,000 mortgage placed thereon by the Exploration Company, and in consideration of the sum of $34,000 then paid by Brant.

Soon after the transfer of the Imperial Valley Company stock to Brant, Easton and other officers of the corporation resigned their respective offices, and others were elected or substituted in their places. In January, 1918, 8,000 acres of the Imperial Valley Company land were sold to one Shintani for $65 per acre, payable in installments, and in October, 1920, the remaining 7,000 acres were sold to Keller, Allen & Co. for the sum of $550,000 in capital stock of the Globe Cotton Oil Mills, a corporation. A considerable part of the consideration for the first-mentioned sale has been paid, and the stock received in consideration for the second sale has apparently become worthless, but that fact is not deemed material here. Brant died in March, 1922, and about five months later a claim was presented by Easton against his estate. The claim was rejected, and the present suit followed.

Briefly stated, Easton contends that in November, 1917, Brant represented to him that he was unable to procure a further extension of time for the payment of the mortgage on the Imperial Valley Company land; that if the debt was not paid at once the mortgage would be immediately foreclosed, without any right of redemption; that, if Easton would transfer the Imperial Valley Company stock to him, his relations with the officers of the mortgagee were such that they would not foreclose the mortgage as against him; that he would take an assignment of the stock from Easton in trust, would sell the Imperial Valley Company land, deduct advances made, pay off the mortgage, and return the residue to Easton.

It is further contended that the Brant home was conveyed to Easton to enable the latter to dispose of it without the knowledge of Brant's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Shew v. Dulles
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • February 4, 1955
    ...States, 9 Cir., 94 F. 834; Woey Ho v. United States, 9 Cir., 109 F. 888; Quong Sue v. United States, 9 Cir., 116 F. 316; Easton v. Brant, 9 Cir., 19 F.2d 857; Heath v. Helmick, 9 Cir., 173 F.2d 157; National Labor Relations Board v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 9 Cir., 204 F.2d 79, affirmed in How......
  • Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corporation v. Fear
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • June 6, 1939
    ...94 F.2d 156, 161; Aro Equipment v. Herring-Wissler Co., 8 Cir., 84 F.2d 619; Nygard v. Dickinson, 9 Cir., 97 F.2d 53, 58; Easton v. Brant, 9 Cir., 19 F.2d 857. The trial court found that while the appellant was doing "outside work" in violation of its contract of November 9, 1928, its offic......
  • Oregon Mortgage Co. v. Renner
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • April 21, 1938
    ...61 F.2d 552, 558; Exchange National Bank v. Meikle, 9 Cir., 61 F.2d 176, 179; Jones v. Jones, 9 Cir., 35 F.2d 943, 945; Easton v. Brant, 9 Cir., 19 F.2d 857, 859; Gila Water Co. v. International Finance Corp., 9 Cir., 13 F.2d 1, 2 Compare New York Life Ins. Co. v. Simons, 1 Cir., 60 F.2d 30......
  • Chow Sing v. Brownell, 13746.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • January 17, 1955
    ...States, 9 Cir., 94 F. 834; Woey Ho v. United States, 9 Cir., 109 F. 888; Quong Sue v. United States, 9 Cir., 116 F. 316; Easton v. Brant, 9 Cir., 19 F.2d 857; Heath v. Helmick, 9 Cir., 173 F.2d 157; National Labor Relations Board v. Howell Chevrolet Co., 9 Cir., 204 F.2d 79, affirmed in How......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT