Patterson v. Hewitt

• Decision Date: 28 February 1901
• Citation: 11 N.M. 1,66 P. 552
• Parties: PATTERSON et al.v.HEWITT et al.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

11 N.M. 1

66 P. 552

PATTERSON et al.

v.HEWITT et al.

Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico.

Feb. 28, 1901.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Claimants of conflicting mining claims entered into a verbal agreement by the terms of which all of their former locations should be abandoned, and certain new locations should be made in the name of one of the parties, on condition that each of the parties shall perform their pro rate share of the work necessary to make and maintain such new location and procure patents for the same. One of the parties left the territory in 1883, prior to the performance of his share of the labor required, leaving agents to represent him; and another left the territory in 1885, after such work was performed and a demand for deed was made, leaving an agent, who also made demand for deed, which was refused. In the absence of these nonresidents, the other claimants performing their pro rate share of the labor required, other parties contributed large sums of money and performed a large amount of labor for several years for the development of the claims, which were of purely speculative value when the nonresident claimants left the territory, the result of which was the discovery and extraction of large quantities of valuable ores, and great enhancement in the value of the property in the year 1890 and subsequent years, to the accomplishment of which results neither the nonresident claimants nor their agents contributed either money or labor, or in any manner whatever. April 23, 1893, said nonresident claimants, C. Ewing Patterson and Henry J. Patterson, brought suit to recover a one-fourth interest in said mining claims, and also for an accounting for money received from ores taken therefrom, and for the enforcement of a trust, alleging performance of labour and demand for deed prior to the departure of Henry J. Patterson in April, 1885, and also the failure and refusal of John Y. Hewitt, who made the locations, to execute and deliver deeds, etc. Held, that under the circumstances of this case the complainants were guilty of laches, in equity, in failing to institutte proceedings to enforce alleged rights accruing eight years prior to the commencement of suit, and that a court of equity will not aid in the enforcement of stale claims where the circumstances show that the enforcement would be inequitable.

2. Where a case is of purely equitable cognizance, in the application of the doctrine of laches courts of equity act upon their own inherent doctrine of discouraging, for the peace of society, antiquated demands, and refuse to interfere where there has been gross laches in prosecuting the claim, or long acquiescence in the assertion adverse rights.

3. In such case the statute of limitations does not necessarily govern the court in the application of laches.

4. Sections 2916, 2930, Comp. Laws 1897, apply limitations to trusts founded upon verbal agreements or unwritten contracts, where the defendant has not fraudulently concealed his cause of action, or the existence thereof, from the party entitled or having a right thereto; and there was no such concealment in this case.

Appeal from district court, Lincoln county; before Justice H. B. Hamilton.

Bill by C. Ewing Patterson and others against John Y. Hewitt and others. From a decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

This case was begun on the 29th of April, 1893, in the district court for Lincoln county, by the filing of a bill of complaint on behalf of C. Ewing Patterson, a resident of New Jersey, and Henry J. Patterson, a resident of New Mexico, against John Y. Hewett, William Watson, Mathew Hoyle, and Harvey B. Fergusson, residents of New Mexico, and Old Abe Company, a New Mexico corporation. The appellants sue to enforce a trust which is alleged to have existed between the appellants sue to enforce a trust which is alleged to have existed between the appellants and Hewitt, and by virtue of which they seek to recover a one-fourth interest in two mining locations made in the name of John Y. Hewitt on the 2d day of May, 1884. They also pray for an accounting of the proceeds of ores taken from the premises, for a lien upon the property, for an injunction, and the appointment of a receiver. The court, at the conclusion of the testimony and the arguments of counsel, made numerous findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the 15th day of February, 1897, rendered a final decree dismissing appellants' bill at their cost. Appellants prayed an appeal, which was granted, and brought the case to this court.

The facts as found by the court are: “(1) That the real estate or mining ground known as the ‘old Abe Mining Claim,’ in controversy in this suit, was, about the year 1881, claimed by the complainants herein, and by one of the defendants, Watson, under the locations made by them of said ground some time in the year 1881; that between that time the year 1881, and the year 1883-the complaintants, in conjunction with the said defendant Watson, did a large amount of work upon the said ground, and were claiming the same as the locators thereof under the mining laws of the United States. (2) The court both also find that the said ground was also at the said date, to wit, between 1881 and 1883, claimed by other parties, among whom was the defendant Hewitt and others. (3) The court both further find that some time prior to August, 1883, some rich ore had been discovered within the boundaries of said ground by one of th complain ants Patterson. (4) The court both further find from the evidence that the said ground was in August, 1883, in dispute between the complainants and the said Watson upon the one sided and the said other parties upon the other. (5) The court both further find that the said complainants and the said defendant Watson, and all of the parties who were interested in said ground, held a meeting in White Oaks in August of September, 1883, for the purpose of adjusting the difficulties then existing between them in reference to the said ground, and to endeavor, if possible, to arrive at an agreement whereby the interests of all parties in said ground would be protected and preserved; that at the said meeting there were present the two complainants, and the defendant Waston, and the defendant Hewitt, and some other persons who were interested in said ground. (6) The court doth further find that at the said meeting it was then and there agreed by and between the complainants herein and the said defendants William Watson and John Y. Hewitt and the other persons who were interested in said ground that all of the old locations then existing upon the said ground, whether made by the complainants, or any of the defendants or conflicting claimants therein, should be from that date abandoned, surrendered, and given up by all of the parties, and that the said ground should be taken possession of by a trustee, who should locate the said ground in his own name, and hold the same as trustee for the benefit of all the parties then interested in said ground. (7) The court doth further find that it was agreed upon as a trustee, with direction and authority to locate the said ground in his own name, and to hold the same as trustee for all of the parties in interest; and it was further agreed by and between the said parties claiming the said ground, as well the complainants as the defendants Watson and Hewitt, and the other persons interested therein, that sufficient work should be done upon said ground in order to discover mineral upon the said ground, and to obtain a patent therefor; and it was further agreed that said Hewitt, as such trustee, should make a deed to each of the said parties holding an interest therein, who should contribute his part of the work and labor and expenses in doing the necessary work in order to obtain the said patent, but there was no agreement as to what should become of the interest of any one who failed to contribute his share of the expenses. It was also agreed that each of the said complainants, should be contribute his share of expenses, should receive a one-eight interest in said location so made by said Hewitt; and that the said Watson should also receive an eighth interest; and the said Hewitt should receive an eighth interest, partially on account of his interest in the ground; and that the remainder of said property should go to the other parties who were interested therein. (8) The court doth further find thatafter the said agreement was made the said Hewitt took charge of said property thereunder; that the said Watson, defendant, and one of the complainants Patterson superintended and directed the work upon the said mine during the year 1883 and part of the year 1884. (9) The court doth further find that there was a one-sixth interest in said mine, which it was agreed should be sold, and which was sold to H. B. Fergusson for the sum of five hundred dollars, which sum of money was to be used and was used in the working and development of the said mine after the said compromise agreement. (10) The court doth further find that after said compromise agreement, in August or September, 1883, down to April, 1885, a large amount of work had been done upon the said property to obtain a patent therefor, and sufficient to discover mineral thereon. (11) The court doth further find that after said compromise agreement of August, 1883, there was contributed, either by the complainants themselves or for them, sufficient means and labour to pay their proportionate shares of the work upon the said mine to obtain a patent and to entitle them to the deed therefor. (12) The court doth further find that in April, 1885, the complainants herein had complied with their part of the agreement sufficiently to entitle them to a deed from the said John Y. Hewitt, as such trustee, for their one-eighth interest, each, in and to said mine under said agreement. (13) The court doth further find that...