Huff v. Hardwick

• Citation: 75 P. 593,19 Colo.App. 416
• Parties: HUFF v. HARDWICK.
• Decision Date: 08 February 1904
• Court: Court of Appeals of Colorado

75 P. 593

19 Colo.App. 416

HUFF v. HARDWICK.

Court of Appeals of Colorado

February 8, 1904

Appeal from District Court, El Paso County.

Action by C.E. Huff against J.O. Hardwick. From a judgment of nonsuit, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.

T.J. Black, for appellant.

J.W Ady and J.W. Sheafor, for appellee.

THOMSON P.J.

According to the evidence, in November, 1895, the appellee employed the appellant to negotiate, in appellee's behalf, an exchange of certain mining stocks belonging to the appellant, for the interest of one Fletcher in the Blackbird, Bonanza, Kiowa and Carbonate placer mining claims, in Cripple Creek Mining District, Colo. The appellant accordingly proceeded to execute the commission with which he was intrusted, and succeeded in effecting the exchange, taking the titles to the several claims in his own name. After having so acquired title, he reported what he had done to the appellee. At the time appellant was employed, there was no agreement as to his compensation for his services; but when he had concluded his work and made his report it was agreed between the parties that the appellant should handle the Blackbird and Bonanza and the appellee the Kiowa and Carbonate placer, and that the appellant should give the appellee one-half of what he realized from the former claims and the appellee should give the appellant one-half of what he realized from the two latter. The appellant thereupon conveyed the Kiowa and Carbonate placer to the appellee. The appellant soon afterwards sold the Blackbird for a certain sum in money and a number of shares of mining stock. He gave appellee one-half of the money, and offered him one-half of the stock, but he declined to receive it, saying he had plenty of that kind of stock. The appellee then conveyed the interests he had received from the appellant, together with his individual interest in three other claims, to the Montreal Gold Mining Company, in consideration of the issuance to him of 501,000 shares of the capital stock of that company, and afterwards sold this stock for $28,000. He refused to account to the appellant for any portion of the money. The appellant brought this suit to recover the share of the money to which he was, as he alleged, entitled by virtue of his agreement with the appellee. When the plaintiff had concluded his evidence, on motion of the defendant judgment of nonsuit was rendered against him.

The foregoing statement of facts is derived from the evidence introduced by the plaintiff, which was the only evidence introduced, and which the motion for a nonsuit admitted to be true. It was shown that in the transaction between the defendant and the mining company the interests conveyed were not separately valued, but that they were taken by the company at a gross sum for the whole. The plaintiff sought to prove that the claims were treated as of equal value per acre, and that the amount of stock allowed for them was calculated upon the total acreage; and then undertook to show what the total acreage was, and what was the acreage of the claims in the proceeds of which he was interested. All the evidence so offered was, on objection by the defendant, excluded, except as to the acreage of the Carbonate placer. In so ruling, the court erred. If it be true that the property was received by the company at the same valuation per acre, then proof of the total acreage, and of the acreage of the claims out of the proceeds of which plaintiff was to be paid, would render the amount to which he was entitled a simple matter of computation, and we know of no other method by, which such amount could be ascertained. We infer, however, that, in the opinion of counsel, the plaintiff could...