Idaho Gold Min. Co. v. Winchell

Citation6 Idaho 729,59 P. 533
PartiesIDAHO GOLD MINING COMPANY v. WINCHELL
Decision Date13 December 1899
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho

LIEN-INTERPLEADER ACTION.-A person who files a lien on property for material furnished, and thereafter appears in an interpleader action brought to determine the priority of the rights of creditors to the purchase price paid for the property on which the lien is claimed, and demands that his claim be paid out of said fund, weives such lien and is estopped from foreclosing the same.

MINING CLAIMS-OUSTER.-Where one unlawfully ousts the owner from mining claims and in working the same creates debts, such debts are not legal claims for liens against the mining claims.

ESTOPPEL-PURCHASE PRICE FUND.-Where one has a valid lien on property for the payment of a debt, and such property is sold on a contract made prior to the creation of such debt, and the claimant goes into a court of equity and asks to have his lien claim paid out of the purchase price fund, he is estopped from thereafter resorting to such property to make such debt.

DECREE OF COURT OF SISTER STATE.-A decree of a court of equity which has jurisdiction of the parties is binding on them, and if such decree affects the title to real property in another state such decree will be given force in that state.

(Syllabus by the court.)

APPEAL from District Court, Bannock County.

Reversed and remanded, with instructions. Costs of this appeal awarded to the appellant.

E. E Chalmers, for Appellant.

The findings show that the alleged lien of Mr. Winchell is based upon the fact that he furnished wood or cordwood to the Union company while it was in possession of the mines. This wood was furnished subsequent to July 10, 1895, the date the Union company ousted plaintiff, and prior to January 14, 1896, the date the lien was filed. Consequently all rights herein are to be determined by the lien law of 1893 as amended in 1895. (Laws 1893, p. 49.) Subsequent sections give every person performing labor upon or furnishing cordwood, etc., a lien upon the wood. (Laws 1893, pp. 55-57.) These liens are purely statutory. If the statute does not expressly give the lien none exists. Nothing is plainer than the fact that a person who furnishes wood or cordwood to a mining company has no lien upon the mine for the payment for his wood. He has the right to file a lien upon the wood, but not upon the mine. The principle of statutory interpretation here announced was applied in Williams v. Toledo Coal Co., 25 Or. 426 42 Am. St. Rep 799, 36 P. 159; Silvester v. Quartz Min Co., 80 Cal. 510, 22 P. 217; see, also, 13 Ency. of Law, 597. The record shows that the Winchell lien accrued between July 10, 1895, and January 1, 1896. It was foreclosed September 24, 1896; that is, the judgment of foreclosure was given on that day. The Idaho Gold Mining Company was not a party to the action. Therefore, the judgment of foreclosure is of no effect as to plaintiff herein, because plaintiff was not a party to the action wherein the same was given. (Falconer v. Cochran, 68 Minn. 405, 71 N.W. 386; 2 Black on Judgments, sec. 534.) As to the alleged lien, it is absolutely void as to plaintiff, because not enforced against plaintiff within six months after it was filed. The laws of Idaho provide that a lien shall be void unless enforced within six months after filing. (Idaho Laws, 1895 pp. 48-50; Stoermer v. Bank, 152 Ind. 104, 52 N.E. 606; Falconer v. Cochran, 68 Minn. 405, 71 N.W. 386.) It is a fundamental proposition in the law of every enlightened country, and particularly in the law of our country, that no person shall be deprived of his property without his consent, either express or implied. To permit a trespasser to cumber the property of an innocent and nonconsenting third person with charges and liens is to place the power of confiscation in private hands. (Spruck v. McRoberts, 139 N.Y. 193, 34 N.E. 896; Hankinson v. Vantine, 152 N.Y. 20, 46 N.E. 292; Eaton v. Rocca, 75 Cal. 93, 16 P. 529; Fuller v. Pauley, 48 Neb. 138, 66 N.W. 1115; Steele v. Mining Co., 4 Idaho 505, 42 P. 585.) Mr. Winchell either deemed the Union company the owner of the property, or he considered it agent of the owner. If he deemed it owner, his lien should be confined to its interest in the property, which is nothing. (Jurgenson v. Diller, 114 Cal. 491, 55 Am. St. Rep. 83, 46 P. 610; Eaton v. Rocco, 75 Cal. 93, 16 P. 529.) Mr. Winchell appeared in the interpleader suit and set up his claim to the fund, and the court found and decided that the Idaho company was entitled to have its property in Idaho freed of the liens and claims of defendants. His position in that matter is so inconsistent with his present attitude that it works an estoppel independently of the adjudication. (Blaker v. Morse, 60 Kan. 24, 55 P. 274; 2 Black on Judgments, sec. 632; Bigelow on Estoppel, 5th ed., 673-694; Parke Co. v. White River Co., 101 Cal. 37, 35 P. 442.) The findings and decree in the interpleader suit are binding in all respects, both as to his claim upon the fund and as to his alleged lien upon the Idaho property. The decree of the court of equity having jurisdiction of the parties is binding upon those parties wherever they may be, and if it affects the title to property in another state, it will be given force in that state. (Black on Judgments, sec. 872; Burnley v. Stevenson, 24 Ohio St. 474, 15 Am. Rep. 621; Newton v. Bronson, 13 N.Y. 587, 67 Am. Dec. 89; McGee v. Sweeney, 84 Cal. 100, 23 P. 1117; Goodman v. Niblack, 102 U.S. 556; Remar v. McKay, 35 F. 86; Townsdin v. Shrader, 39 Kan. 286, 18 P. 186; Southern P. R. R. Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. pp. 48-53, 18 S.Ct. 18; Wolf River Lumber Co. v. Brown, 88 Wis. 638, 60 N.W. 996.)

W. T. Reeves and Thomas F. Terrill, for Respondent Winchell.

On the claim that Winchell had no lien because his claim was for wood, we call the court's attention to the twelfth finding of fact--wherein the court finds it was for wood actually used in the operation of the mine, and that a lien existed therefor is conclusive, and cannot be reviewed on this appeal, the evidence upon which it is based not being before this court by bill of exceptions or motion for a new trial. (Wheeler v. Hayes, 3 Cal. 287.) The sole issue presented by the pleadings in the case of Wells, Fargo & Co. v. Union Mining and Milling Co. et al., was, Who is entitled to the money held by it? The question as to any existing liens upon the mining property located in Idaho which was not even referred to in such pleadings, was not, and could not, be settled in that action, and any finding or conclusion or decree that might have been made in that action, outside of the issues thus presented, were and are void and are not binding on any party. (Gregory v. Nelson, 41 Cal. 278; Cummings v. Cummings, 75 Cal. 441, 17 P. 442; Rudel v. Los Angeles Co., 118 Cal. 288, 50 P. 400.)

SULLIVAN, J. Huston, C. J., and Quarles, J., concur.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, J,

This action was commenced against twenty-eight defendants for the purpose of quieting the title to the Robinson and Austin mining claims and the Robinson millsite, all of which are patented and located in Bingham county. Due service of the summons was made on all of the defendants. Some of them suffered default, others filed disclaimers, and others demurred, which demurrers were overruled, and those demurring refused to plead further. Only the defendant Winchell answered and defended in the case. Judgment was entered in conformity with the prayer of the complaint against all of the defendants except the respondent, Winchell; and, as to him, the court found that he had a valid lien and judgment against the said mining claims and millsite for the sum of $ 649.47 and costs, which he was entitled to enforce. This appeal is from the judgment in favor of Winchell.

Numerous errors are assigned, all to the effect that the court erred in rendering judgment in favor of Winchell, the respondent.

The following facts appear from the record. That on the twenty-eighth day of November, 1894, E. E. Chalmers and others were the owners of said mining claims, and the millsite and improvements thereon, and on that date entered into an agreement with the Idaho Gold Mining Company, the appellant, whereby they agreed to sell and convey, by good and sufficient deed of conveyance, free and clear of all encumbrances, said property to appellant for the sum of $ 5,700, to be paid in certain stipulated payments; said payments to be made at the bank of Wells, Fargo & Co., at Salt Lake City, Utah. A deed of said property, executed by said Chalmers and his co-owners, was at that time placed in escrow in said bank, to be delivered to the appellant corporation upon its making the payments as stipulated in said agreement. It was also agreed therein that the appellant should have immediate possession of said property, with the right to work the same during the life of said contract. It was also agreed that a former contract made by said E. E Chalmers and co-owners with one Wilson for the sale of said property, and which had been assigned to the appellant, should be surrendered to said Chalmers and his co-owners, which was done, and thereupon the appellant was put in possession of said mining claims, millsite and other property, and began...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Andre v. Morrow
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 13 Abril 1984
    ...property by a party is a valid exercise of a court's power. 2 Rozan v. Rozan, 49 Cal.2d 322, 317 P.2d 11 (1957); Idaho Gold Mining Co. v. Winchell, 6 Idaho 729, 59 P. 533 (1899); Miller v. Miller, 109 Misc.2d 982, 441 N.Y.S.2d 339 (1981); Blue River Sawmills, Ltd. v. Gates, 225 Or. 439, 358......
  • Porter v. Porter, 7594
    • United States
    • Arizona Supreme Court
    • 14 Julio 1966
    ...Cruz Ranch v. Superior Court, 76 Ariz. 19, 258 P.2d 413. The same rule has been applied in the State of Idaho. Idaho Gold Mining Co. v. Winchell, 6 Idaho 729, 59 P. 533. The Idaho court did not try title to Arizona real property but merely computed and divided community debts and assets pur......
  • Smith v. Faris-Kesl Const. Co., Ltd.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 27 Marzo 1915
    ... 150 P. 25 27 Idaho 407 J. W. SMITH, Respondent, v. FARIS--KESL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, ... Ency. of Law, 494; Bloom, ... Mechanics' Liens, 627, 630; Idaho Gold Min. Co. v ... Winchell, 6 Idaho 729, 96 Am. St. 290, 59 P. 533; Bowen ... ...
  • Summers v. Martin
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 23 Marzo 1956
    ...is subject to its jurisdiction to execute and deliver an instrument of conveyance to lands situate in another state. Idaho Gold Min. Co. v. Winchell, 6 Idaho 729, 59 P. 533; Jarvis v. Hamilton, 73 Idaho 131, 246 P.2d 216, 33 A.L.R.2d 910; Promis v. Duke, 208 Cal. 420, 281 P. 613; Tully v. B......
  • 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