Merritt v. Joyce
| Decision Date | 19 April 1912 |
| Docket Number | 17,334 - (24) |
| Citation | 135 N.W. 820,117 Minn. 235 |
| Parties | FRANKLIN W. MERRITT v. JAMES T. JOYCE and Others |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Crow Wing county against James T Joyce, John McAlpine and John C. Campbell to determine what consideration was paid for the real estate mentioned in the opinion by defendant Joyce; what, if any, right he or the other defendants had therein and to determine that plaintiff was the owner of an undivided one-third of the premises, that defendant Joyce held title to an undivided one-third interest in trust for plaintiff, and plaintiff was owner thereof free and clear of any right, title or interest of either of the defendants. The amended complaint alleged the facts set out in the first two paragraphs of the opinion.
The separate answer of defendant Joyce admitted the making of the agreement between Andrew Aune and plaintiff and of that between plaintiff and defendant Campbell, by which Campbell agreed to purchase an undivided one-third interest in that contract, and of that between plaintiff and defendant McAlpine by which the latter agreed to purchase an undivided one-third interest in the Aune contract; admitted the conveyance of the property by Aune to the answering defendant, and that the latter claimed to be the owner of the land. It further alleged that plaintiff abandoned all of the privileges referred to in the agreement with Aune long prior to October 7, 1907, and never attempted to avail himself thereof.
The defendants McAlpine and Campbell demurred to the amended complaint.
The case was tried before McClenahan, J., who, at the close of the plaintiff's case, granted the motion of each of the defendants for a dismissal of the action. From an order denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial as to each defendant separately, and as to all defendants jointly, he appealed. Reversed.
Option to buy -- extension -- waiver.
The mere fact that the owner of land here, who has within this state given an option to sell, conveys the same during the life of the option to a resident of an adjoining state, whose residence and place of business therein is readily ascertained and easily accessible, does not extend the time within which the option must be exercised, nor waive the tender of the purchase price within the stated time.
Joint owners of option -- trust.
If two or more are joint owners of an option to purchase land, and jointly interested in the venture of exploring it for mineral deposits and exercising the option to purchase the land if such deposits are found, each of such joint owners sustains a confidential and fiduciary relation to the others so jointly interested in the common venture, so that, if one of them obtains the title to the land within the time of the option upon payment of a less sum than stated in the option, and with intention to defraud the others of their rights, and such others refrain from protecting the option by tender on his false assurance that the title was taken and is held in trust for them, equity will impress a trust in their favor upon the land.
Evidence.
The evidence examined, and held to be such that it was error to dismiss the action without making findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Kerr & Fowler, for appellant.
Harris Richardson and Harold C. Kerr, for respondents.
On December 6, 1905, Andrew Aune, the owner of an eighty-acre tract in Crow Wing county, Minnesota, upon receiving $500, gave plaintiff a contract under which explorations for iron ore might be made on the land for a period of twenty-two months following, and within that time he had the privilege of purchasing the same upon payment of an additional sum of $7,500. Within fifteen days after demand Aune was to furnish an abstract of title to the land, and plaintiff was to have fifteen days, after receipt thereof, within which to examine the same and pay the purchase money. This contract was duly recorded December 7, 1905. On March 14, 1906, plaintiff assigned to each of the defendants Campbell and McAlpine an undivided one-third interest in the Aune contract, and they each assumed and agreed to pay one-third of the purchase price if the land was bought, and bound themselves in equal proportion with plaintiff to perform the obligations of the Aune contract. These assignments were recorded June 23, 1906.
On October 27, 1906, one J. O. Stetson obtained for $5 an option to purchase the land from Aune for $30 per acre. He subjoined an assignment to the defendant Joyce, which he acknowledged and recorded November 1, 1906, and on the same date a quitclaim deed was obtained from Aune to Joyce for the stated consideration of $2,400, but the actual consideration, $2,200, was paid by the defendant Campbell. This deed was recorded November 2, 1906. On November 15, 1906, Joyce quitclaimed an undivided one-fourth to Campbell and a like amount to one John A. Root; but these quitclaim deeds were not of record when this action was begun. The deeds, however, were delivered to McAlpine about December 20, 1906, when Joyce also turned over to McAlpine two drafts, for $750 each, to pay for the one-half interest in the land retained by Joyce. These drafts were payable to McAlpine's order, and were paid December 31, 1906. Aune left for Canada soon after making the deed, and has never returned to the state. Root has always resided in Pennsylvania, and Joyce in Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
Plaintiff brought this action on the theory that he and Campbell and McAlpine were mutually interested in the joint venture of exploring for iron ore and securing title to lands in which ore might be found; that the defendants Campbell and McAlpine conspired with the defendant Joyce to deprive plaintiff of his interest in the Aune land, and that the Stetson option and its assignment to Joyce, as well as the conveyance to him, were all done in pursuance of such plan; that plaintiff suffered his option to expire on the false assurance of McAlpine and Campbell that Joyce held the title in trust and the interest of plaintiff was protected; and plaintiff claims that he is entitled to have the court decree that Joyce holds one-third of the land in trust to be conveyed to plaintiff upon payment of such sum as the court may determine to be proper.
The defendant McAlpine disclaims any interest in the property, Campbell claims to own an undivided one-fourth, and Joyce an undivided one-half. None admit that plaintiff is entitled to any interest in the land or any relief.
At the close of plaintiff's testimony, upon separate motions made, each of the defendants was dismissed, and no findings made. A motion for a new trial being denied, plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff contends that as a matter of law the Aune option had not expired when this action was brought, and no tender was required before bringing suit, for the reason that at no time since Aune left was there anyone in the state from whom to demand abstract of title or to whom payment could be tendered. If this be true, plaintiff is entitled to specific performance, regardless of the existence of the conspiracy fraud, or fiduciary relation upon which relief is predicated in the complaint. It has been held that where an executory contract for the sale of lands has been entered into in the state where the land is, and subsequent thereto the vendor leaves the state, the vendee is not bound to seek out the vendor in another country or distant...
To continue reading
Request your trial