Harris v. Lloyd

• Decision Date: 28 December 1891
• Citation: 28 P. 736,11 Mont. 390
• Parties: HARRIS et al. v. LLOYD et al. [1]
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

28 P. 736

11 Mont. 390

HARRIS et al. v. LLOYD et al. ^[1]

Supreme Court of Montana

December 28, 1891

Appeal from district court, Silver Bow county; JOHN J. MCHATTON Judge.

Action by William Harris and others against John E. Lloyd and others. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.

Robinson & Stapleton and Forbis & Forbis, for appellants.

John F Baldwin and F. W. Cole, for respondents.

BLAKE C.J.

This action was brought to recover a judgment for the sum of $15,000 on account of the sale of certain lode mining claims to Thomas Couch, and for the sale of the property which had been conveyed by Couch to the Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Company, to satisfy the liens of the vendors. No general verdict was requested by the court or any of the parties, and the jury returned the following special findings: "(1) Were the plaintiffs and the defendant John Lloyd engaged jointly in working and developing the mines mentioned in the complaint, known as the 'Harris and Lloyd Tunnel Property, ' from the year 1879 or 1880 to on or about the month of March, 1888? Answer. Yes. (2) If you answer the foregoing question yes, were they working the said mines with a view of extracting ores and selling the property? A. Yes. (3) Did the owners interested in said property, while so jointly interested, do and perform work and labor and expend money of the total value and amount of about $20,000? A. Yes. (4) Did they each contribute a proportionate share in the expenses incurred in the working of such mining property? A. Yes. (5) Did they share proportionately in the profits and losses incurred or accruing from said work? A. Yes. (6) Did the defendant Lloyd and the defendant Couch enter into an agreement by which the defendant Lloyd was to receive $30,000, in addition to the $100,000 mentioned in the contract, lease, and deed? A. Yes. (7) Did the defendants Lloyd and Couch, or either of them conceal from the plaintiffs the fact of the making of such agreement for the payment of $30,000? A. No. (8) Did the plaintiffs know of such agreement for the payment of $30,000 to Lloyd until after said property was accepted and sold and the deed delivered? A. Yes. (9) Did the defendants Lloyd and Couch, or either of them, by acts or words, represent to or conceal from the plaintiffs during the negotiation for the sale of said property that the sum of $100,000 was the entire consideration or purchase price of same? A. No. (10) Was said sum of $30,000, mentioned in the agreement between defendants Lloyd and Couch, a part of the consideration and purchase price of said mining properties? A. Yes. (11) Did the defendants Couch and the Boston and Montana Consolidated Copper and Silver Mining Company have notice of the claim of the plaintiffs to one-half of said $30,000 before $22,000 of said $30,000 was paid to said defendant Lloyd, or any other person? A. Yes." The following findings were submitted by the court on its own motion: "(1) Did John E. Lloyd before or at the time that the contract and deed for the property were signed, inform the plaintiffs that he was to receive the additional $30,000 on the sale? Answer. No. (2) Did John E. Lloyd, in his negotiations with Couch, offer the entire property to him for the sum of $130,000 or $150,000, and did Couch accept his proposition of sale and agree to pay $130,000 for the entire property? A. Yes. (3) If you find that John E. Lloyd negotiated and effected a contract of sale of the entire property, then answer if he had any agreement with the plaintiffs to sell their interest for them, and, if so, at what price. A. No. (4) Did the plaintiff and defendant John E. Lloyd and the other owners in the mining property mentioned in the complaint at any time before the contract for the sale of the same enter into an agreement between themselves to sell the same for the benefit of all in proportion to their respective interests? A. No. (5) Did all the owners of the mining property in question have an agreement or understanding and consent between themselves by which all were to consent and agree together with reference to all matters touching their interest in the property before any action was done by any or all of them with reference to said property? A. No." The two following special findings were requested by defendant, and also submitted to the jury: "(5) Did the defendant John E. Lloyd, in any manner whatever, induce the plaintiffs to accept at the rate of one hundred thousand dollars for their interest in the property described in the complaint? Answer. No. (6) Did the defendant John E. Lloyd at any time or at all make any false representations to the plaintiffs whereby they were induced to sign the contract with Thomas Couch for the sale of the property described in the complaint? A. No."

The court afterwards made its findings of fact and conclusions of law therein as follows: "This cause having been tried to a jury, which has returned special findings of fact in answer to requests submitted therefor, and having been submitted to the court, on motion of plaintiffs, for judgment and decree on the pleadings, evidence, and findings herein, the court as chancellor, makes the following findings of fact, and accepts, confirms, and approves the findings of the jury in so far as their findings are embraced and herein included, and rejects and sets aside such of the findings of the jury as are not embraced herein; and any findings herein made which are not supported by the findings of the jury are made by the court of its own motion:" Facts found: "(1) That the plaintiffs and defendant John E. Lloyd were for a period of more than eight years prior to the month of March, 1888, co-owners and tenants in common, in the proportions mentioned in the complaint, of the mining property described in the complaint, and known as the 'Harris and Lloyd Tunnel Property.' (2) That during all of said time they were engaged jointly in working and developing said property, with a view of extracting ores, and of selling said property, and the owners did during said time jointly perform work and labor and expend money of the total value and amount of about twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) thereon. (3) That they each contributed a proportionate share, according to their respective interests, in the working of said mining property during said time, and shared proportionately in the profits and losses incurred or accruing from said work. (4) That the above relations of the parties to each other regarding said property continued up to and existed at the time the contract of lease and sale mentioned in the complaint was entered into, although they had ceased work on said property some two or more weeks before that time. (5) That the defendant John E. Lloyd did, on or about the 19th day of March, 1888, and before the 31st day thereof, make a proposal to, and enter into an agreement with, the defendant Thomas Couch to sell to him all of the said property, and by which agreement the defendant Lloyd was to receive thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) in addition to the one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) mentioned in the contract, lease, and deed, as he claimed, for signing the deed for his share and that of his brothers; which agreement for the additional thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) was without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs, and which agreement he concealed from them. (6) The defendant Lloyd never informed either of the plaintiffs of the existence of said contract for thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) additional at all; and the defendant Couch never informed either of them until the property was accepted and sold and the deed delivered, and they had no knowledge of the same until after said time. (7) That the defendant Lloyd represented to the plaintiffs, by signing the deed with them for the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, ($100,000,) and the contract with Samuel J. Reynolds for two thousand dollars, ($2,000,) that the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) was the entire consideration for the sale of said property. (8) That the defendant Lloyd effected the sale of said property, and the thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) mentioned in the agreement between the defendants Lloyd and Couch was a part of the consideration and purchase price of said mining properties, and that the contract of sale executed to Couch by the owners was not made on behalf of the plaintiffs by Samuel J. Reynolds. (9) That the defendant Lloyd had no agreement with the plaintiffs whereby he was to receive any consideration for making a sale of said property, or receive or retain said thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for his own use. (10) That the defendant Lloyd induced the plaintiffs to accept at the rate of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for their interests in the property described in the complaint. (11) That the defendant Lloyd, by signing the deed and contract, selling for the entire consideration at one hundred thousand dollars, ($100,000,) and concealing the fact that he had an agreement for the payment of an additional thirty thousand dollars, ($30,000,) induced the plaintiffs to sign the contract and deed with Thomas Couch for the sale and conveyance of the property described in the complaint. (12) That the defendants Couch and the Boston and Montana Consolidated Copper and Silver Mining Company knew of the interests and titles of the plaintiff in and to said property at the time of the contract and purchase of the same, and had notice of the claim of the plaintiffs to one-half of said thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) before twenty two thousand dollars ($22,000) of said thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) was paid to said defendant Lloyd or any other person. (13) That the findings requested by defendan...