Leggat v. McLure

• Decision Date: 14 August 1916
• Docket Number: 2761.
• Citation: 234 F. 620
• Parties: LEGGAT v. McLURE.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

234 F. 620

LEGGAT v. McLURE.

No. 2761.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

August 14, 1916

The appellee brought suit against the appellant to compel a conveyance of certain mining properties, alleged to be worth more than $100,000 which had been levied upon on execution and offered for sale at Butte, Mont., on June 6, 1913, upon a judgment against the appellee. The bill alleged that the properties were bid in by the appellant for $1,004.15, under an agreement which he had with the appellee, whereby he was to bid an amount equal to the judgment and costs, and to hold the title so acquired as a mortgage, and that the appellant further agreed, before the expiration of the time for redemption, which was one year, that any title he might obtain he would hold as a mortgage, and that the appellee endeavored to redeem upon the payment to the appellant of the amount so bid, less $500 which he had loaned to the appellant. The appellant answered, denying the allegations of the bill. The court below found that all the allegations of the complaint were true, and directed that upon the payment of the sum bid the appellant should convey to the appellee all the property which the latter owned on the date of the execution sale.

The appellant assigns error to the findings of the court below and to the legal conclusions that the appellee was entitled to recover from the appellant the interests in the mining claims described in the complaint, and that the appellee offered to redeem within a reasonable time after the period of redemption expired.

Nolan &amp Donovan, of Butte, Mont., for appellant.

Gunn Rasch & Hall, of Helena, Mont., and Maury, Templeman &amp Davies, of Butte, Mont., for appellee.

Before GILBERT, ROSS, and HUNT, Circuit Judges.

GILBERT Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).

The findings of fact are all based upon evidence which is conflicting, and which was taken in open court, and they will not be disturbed by this court, in the absence of a showing that in arriving at the same, the court below erroneously applied some rule of evidence or found contrary to the decided weight of the testimony. Moore v. Moore, 121 F. 737, 58 C.C.A. 19; Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U.S. 136, 8 Sup.Ct. 894, 31 L.Ed. 664; Tate v. Holmes, 76 F. 664, 22 C.C.A. 466.

The evidence was that the appellant and the appellee were jointly interested in some of the mining properties, the appellee's interests in which were sold on execution that for many years the appellant had sustained toward the...