Pennsylvania-Coeur D'Alene Mining Co. v. Gallagher

• Decision Date: 28 December 1910
• Citation: 19 Idaho 101,112 P. 1044
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: PENNSYLVANIA-COEUR D'ALENE MINING CO., a Corporation, Respondent, v. WILLIAM GALLAGHER et al., Appellants

112 P. 1044

19 Idaho 101

PENNSYLVANIA-COEUR D'ALENE MINING CO., a Corporation, Respondent, v. WILLIAM GALLAGHER et al., Appellants

Supreme Court of Idaho

December 28, 1910

QUIET TITLE-MINING CLAIMS-RELOCATION OF-CONSPIRACY-FINDINGS-SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE-ADMISSION AND REJECTION OF-FOREIGN CORPORATION-ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION-FILING OF-DESIGNATION OF AGENT-AMENDMENT TO PLEADING.

(Syllabus by the court.)

1. Held, that the court did not err in the admission or rejection of certain evidence.

2. Under the provisions of sec. 2653, Rev. Stats., as amended by laws of 1903 (Sess. Laws, p. 49), which section is 2792, Rev Codes, requiring foreign corporations to file their articles of incorporation and designate an agent upon whom process may be served, where a foreign corporation received conveyances to certain mining claims dated April 21 1906, and filed its articles of incorporation with the county recorder of the county in which such real estate is situated and also with the secretary of state on said date, and on June 16, 1906, filed its designation of a statutory agent in said county and filed said deeds for record, and on the 18th of said month filed a copy of such designation of agent with the secretary of state, held, a sufficient compliance with the provisions of said section and that said conveyances are not void under the provisions thereof.

3. Under the provisions of section 4225 et seq., Rev. Codes, a trial court has large discretion in permitting amendments to pleadings, and may permit such amendments at any stage of the proceedings almost as of course to make the pleadings correspond with the proof.

4. Held, that the evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding of facts.

APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District, for Shoshone County. Hon. W. W. Woods, Judge.

Action to quiet title to certain mining claims. Judgment for respondent. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs of this appeal in favor of the respondent.

James E. Gyde and A. G. Kerns, for Appellants.

A correct interpretation of the law of 1903 does not give a corporation commencing to do business after the passage of that act three months in which to file its designation of agent with the proper officers, but be that as it may, the law explicitly provides that any "pretended deed or conveyance of real estate to such corporation prior to such filings shall be absolutely null and void."

Gray & Knight and John H. Wourms, for Respondent.

"It is generally held that acquiring the title to real or personal property, and holding or transmitting the same, without more, is not the doing or transacting of business within the meaning of the statutes imposing conditions or restrictions upon foreign corporations, and is not prohibited by such statutes." (Foore v. Simon Piano Co., 18 Idaho 167, 108 P. 1038; Louisville Property Co. v. Nashville, 114 Tenn. 213, 84 S.W. 810; Wilson v. Peace, 38 Tex. Civ. 234, 85 S.W. 31; Empire Min. & Mill Co. v. Tombstone Mill. & Min. Co., 100 F. 910.)

SULLIVAN, C. J. Ailshie, J., concurs.

OPINION

SULLIVAN, C. J.

This is an action by the respondent, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Maine, to quiet title to certain mining claims and to have it established by a decree of the court that the defendants hold said claims in trust for the respondent. The appellant claims ownership to said property by virtue of certain deeds conveying said claims to it in the month of April, 1906. Said mining claims are called Golden Eagle No. 1, Golden Eagle No. 2, Columbus, Good Hope, Murray, Wampum, Dinero, Plumbum, Argentum, Good Luck, Gallagher, and Col. Bradford. It is alleged in the complaint that said mining claims were wrongfully and fraudulently relocated by the appellants Dunlap and Smith on the 1st day of January, 1909, under the following names: Reliance, Reliance No. 1, Reliance No. 2, Reliance No. 3, Reliance No. 4, Reliance No. 5, Reliance No. 6, Reliance No. 7, Reliance No. 8, Reliance No. 9, and Reliance No. 11; and it is alleged that said claims were so located in furtherance of a conspiracy entered into between the appellants to defraud plaintiff out of said claims.

Certain demurrers were filed to the complaint and to the amended complaint, on the ground generally that the plaintiff had no capacity to sue and had failed to designate an agent upon whom process could be served, and that the amended complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. All of the demurrers were overruled. Separate answers were filed by the various defendants, all practically in the same form, which admitted that the defendants Dunlap and Smith relocated said claims, but denied that it was through any conspiracy entered into by the defendants to defraud plaintiff of its property. It was alleged in the amended complaint that the ground in controversy was subject to relocation at the time said relocations were made, and alleged in substance that said relocations were in trust for the plaintiff by reason of an unlawful conspiracy whereby it is alleged that the two appellants Gallagher failed purposely to do the annual labor for 1908. The answers admitted that the annual labor was not done for 1908, also alleged that the annual labor was not done for 1907, but denied that the failure of the Gallaghers to do such annual labor was by reason of any conspiracy. The contention of the defendants is that the annual labor was not performed for the years 1907 and 1908, and that such failure was not due to any failure of duty on the part of the appellants or any of them, and that said mining ground was subject to relocation by any person having the statutory qualifications. It appeared from the evidence on the part of the appellants that the claims were not legally relocated by Dunlap and Smith; that they put up notices, staked the claims and pretended to locate them in the month of December, 1908, but afterward, on the second day of January, 1909, went on the ground, re-marked the stakes, dated the notices January 1st, 1909, and filed the notice for record without doing anything further or any other work, and on that showing at the close of the trial the respondent offered an amendment conforming to such testimony, which amendment was allowed by the court.

The court made its finding of facts, conclusions...