Mills v. Hart

• Decision Date: 21 March 1898
• Parties: MILLS et al. v. HART et al.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

52 P. 680

24 Colo. 505

MILLS et al. v. HART et al.

Supreme Court of Colorado

March 21, 1898

Appeal from district court, Eagle county.

Action by David A. Mills and others against J. T. Hart and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Reversed.

Plaintiffs commenced this action to recover from the defendants an interest in the Nevada and Champion lodes, and the value of ores extracted from the premises, averring that these claims were located April 13, 1880; that they purchased their interest from the locators, and alleged a compliance upon their part, and the part of their grantors, with the laws relative to mining claims; and that, subsequent to such purchase, the defendants, or some of them, in 1886, became the owners, by purchase, of the remaining interest therein and thereafter entered into the exclusive possession of the premises in controversy. The company and defendant J. T. Hart answered that the former was the owner of these properties and held receiver's receipt and patent therefor; that it deraigns its title from relocations, as abandoned property of the premises described in the complaint, of date January 2, 1882, the work thereon not having been performed for 1881 and allege compliance upon their part and the part of their grantors with the mining laws; that the defendants Perkins, Shreve, Hubbell, and Hart, by mesne conveyances, became the owners of these relocations February 19, 1886, and that subsequently the defendant company became the owner, without notice that the plaintiffs claimed or had any interest therein; that May 11, 1886, the individual defendants above named filed an amended location certificate, without waiver of any rights acquired under the relocations of January 2, 1882, in which the two claims were included as one, named the Champion, and on April 12, 1887, filed application for patent, on which, November 11, 1891, receiver's receipt, and May 21, 1892, patent, issued to the company. For replication to these answers, plaintiffs admitted the issuance of receiver's receipt and patent; denied that in 1881 the work was not performed on the Nevada and Champion lodes; averred the performance of the work thereon for that year; and denied that the company became the owner without notice of the plaintiffs' claims and rights in the premises, but, on the contrary, that it went into possession and purchased the premises with full knowledge of such rights and claims. Defendants J. T. Hart and the company moved for judgment on the pleadings, based upon the ground that, by the replication, the issuance of the patent to the defendant company was admitted, which motion was sustained, and judgment rendered that the company was the owner of the Champion, and that the defendants go hence. Plaintiffs appeal.defendant declared a trustee of the legal title for his benefit to the extent of his interest.

Charles J. Hughes, Jr., A. R. Brown, and Branch H. Giles, for appellants.

Charles C. Parsons and Henry J. Murray, for appellees.

GABBERT, J. (after stating the facts).

By the pleadings, issues were joined upon the following questions (1) The relationship of co-tenancy between the plaintiffs and the individual defendants; (2) acquisition of title by defendant company, with knowledge or notice of the rights and claims of plaintiffs.

As a general proposition, a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on the facts thereby established, cannot be sustained, except where, under such facts, a judgment different from that pronounced could not be rendered, notwithstanding any evidence which might be produced (Rice v. Bush, 16 Colo. 484, 27 P. 720); or that such a motion cannot be sustained unless, under the admitted facts, the moving party is entitled to judgment, without regard to what the findings might be on the facts upon which issue is joined; so that, in determining the rights of the defendants to the judgment given them, the real question to determine is the sufficiency of the admitted facts to warrant the judgment rendered, and the materiality of those upon which issue is joined. A purchase by a tenant in common of an outstanding title to the premises ordinarily inures to the benefit of his co-tenant. Mining Co. v. O'Brien, 22 Colo....