Hopkins v. the Roseclare Lead Co..
| Decision Date | 30 June 1874 |
| Citation | 1874 WL 8828,72 Ill. 373 |
| Parties | LEWIS C. HOPKINS et al.v.THE ROSECLARE LEAD COMPANY. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Hardin county; the Hon. DAVID J. BAKER, Judge, presiding.
Mr. WESLEY SLOAN, for the appellants.
Mr. JAMES M. WARREN, for the appellee.
In the year 1850, William Pell leased to Neir Valle certain lands in sec. 32, town. 12 south, range 8 east, in Hardin county, for the period of fifty years. The lands were supposed to contain minerals. Valle, with others whom he had associated with him, sunk a number of shafts and ran various tunnels, at a large expense, and had taken out a large amount of lead ore, and proved the land to be valuable for the mineral it contained. The lease still continued in force in 1864, when Valle transferred the lease to Anthony LaGrave, who transferred it to the Roseclare Lead Company, appellee.
In the spring of the year 1864, the company entered upon the land with a large amount of machinery, went to work, but some months afterwards it was discovered that there was a mistake in the description of the land in the lease. It was described as being in township 13, when it was, in fact, in township 12; thereupon the owners of the fee brought ejectment to recover the land. On a trial they recovered a judgment. The defendant paid the costs, and took a new trial under the statute.
The company thereupon filed a bill in equity to correct the mistake, and to enjoin further proceedings in the ejectment suit until a hearing should be had on the bill. At the first term after the bill was exhibited, a demurrer was filed, which was sustained, and the relief sought was refused. Thereupon another judgment of recovery was had in the ejectment suit. The complainants in the bill removed that case to the Supreme Court, where, on a trial, the decree of the court below, refusing the relief asked in the bill, was reversed and the cause remanded. Thereupon complainants filed a supplemental bill, praying a restitution of the possession of the premises.
Afterwards, on the 15th day of January, 1872, LaGrave, a large stockholder in the company, executed instruments in writing, transferring the lease on the lands upon which the company claim they were operating their mining franchises, to one Lewis C. Hopkins, and delivered the lease to him, and sold and gave to him the right to control the suit then pending, in which the validity of the lease was involved, and an agreement was executed by the respective attorneys of the parties to dismiss the suit, and that the relief sought by the cross-bill might be granted.
On the next day another instrument was executed, by which LaGrave agreed to convey to Hopkins a 20 and a 40-acre tract of land, supposed to contain mineral. The agreement states, that Hopkins was to pay therefor $21,775, within thirty days after LaGrave should prepare proper deeds therefor. The deeds were prepared, but Hopkins' attorney refusing to advise that the title was good, he refused to receive them and pay the money under the agreement.
It is contended by the company, that these two agreements, although bearing different dates, constitute but one indivisible contract, and that they can not be separated; that the payment of $25,000 was indispensable to the passing of title to any portion of the matters contracted to be sold. On the other hand, it is claimed that the two agreements related to separate and distinct matters, and were entirely disconnected from each other, and were not intended to be nor were they in anywise connected with each other; that each agreement was independent of the other, and that when the $3225 was paid, and the agreement and other papers were executed and delivered on the 15th of January, that transaction was closed and entirely consummated; and that a failure to pay the money on the purchase of the land in nowise affected the title to the lease, or any benefit that might accrue to Hopkins by having the right to control and have any benefit resulting from the suit.
It is charged in the bill, that the statement in the contract “that the true consideration for the 20 and 40 acres of land is $21,775,” was inserted without being noticed by LaGrave, and was intended as a cheat and a fraud on him, expressing what was never intended by LaGrave, and which was wholly foreign to the contract.
It is likewise alleged, that LaGrave was overreached by Hopkins, who represented himself as being wealthy and able to pay the balance of the money on the land, and also that it was of great importance to him that he should have the control of the suit on that day, thereby inducing LaGrave to surrender the leases and make the transfers. It is also charged, that it was the purpose of Hopkins to get the suit out of the way, and not to acquire title to the land; that Hopkins was in embarrassed circumstances, and a suit against him at law would have been of doubtful result. The bill further charges, that LaGrave had no authority whatever to sell the lease, or to give the control of the suit to Hopkins or any other person, but only had the leases in his possession to enable him to prosecute the suit. There seems to be no question that the transfer of the lease to the company was not recorded when these several transactions occurred.
In an amended answer, Hopkins alleges that, on the 1st day of March, 1872, by agreement in writing, he sold to Hugh McBirney, and a number of others, 175 shares of the Roseclare Lead and Spar Mining Company, and other mining stocks in companies...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Williams
...and has no means of enforcing its wishes, except by the election of other directors at the proper time and in the proper way. In Hopkins v. Lead Co., 72 Ill. 373, it was held that sale of leases and lands belonging to the company by its majority stockholder though made in its name is not bi......
-
Vail v. Drexel
...a decree without them: Leitze v. Clabaugh, 59 Ill. 136; Winkleman v. Kiser, 27 Ill. 21; Woolner v. Wilson, 5 Bradwell, 439; Hopkins v. Roseclare Lead Co. 72 Ill. 373. The time allowed by the decree in which to make payment was too short: Farrell v. Parlier, 50 Ill. 274. The holders of the b......
-
Moody v. Crane
...it being a material part of the contract, renders the contract unenforceable in specific performance by either party. ( Hopkins v. Roseclare Lead Co., 72 Ill. 373; Humphreys v. McKissock, 140 U.S. 304, 11 S.Ct. 35 L.Ed. 473; Smith v. Hurd, 12 Met. (Mass.) 371, 46 Am. Dec. 690.) It is a well......
-
Lynch v. Hickey
... ... Newland, 40 Ill. 100; C. A. W. Co. v. C. M. L. I. Co. 57 Ill. 424; Swift v. Castle, 23 Ill. 209; Goeppner v ... Rotan, 39 Ill. 14; Alexander v. Hoffman, 70 Ill. 114; Hopkins v. Roseclare Lead Co. 72 Ill. 373; Moore v. Munn, 69 Ill. 591.The practice ... ...