Ruthrauff v. Silver King Western Min. & Mill. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 June 1938
• Docket Number: 5927
• Citation: 95 Utah 279,80 P.2d 338
• Parties: RUTHRAUFF et al. v. SILVER KING WESTERN MIN. & MILL. CO. et al
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

80 P.2d 338

95 Utah 279

RUTHRAUFF et al.
v.
SILVER KING WESTERN MIN. & MILL. CO. et al

No. 5927

Supreme Court of Utah

June 9, 1938

[80 P.2d 339]

Appeal from District Court, Third District, Salt Lake County, Allen G. Thurman, Judge.

Action by Wilbur B. Ruthrauff and another against the Silver King Western Mining & Milling Company and others, to quiet title to interest in mining claim, wherein defendants answered separately and counterclaimed. From so much of a decree quieting title as awarded an interest to the plaintiffs, the named defendant appeals, and the other defendants cross-appealed from the disallowance by the decree of any interest to them.

REVERSED AND REMANDED, WITH INSTRUCTIONS.

R. J. Hogan, and George Jay Gibson, both of Salt Lake City, for appellant.

Critchlow & Critchlow, of Salt Lake City, for respondents.

C. Ray Bradford and Chas. M. Morris, both of Salt Lake City, for defendants and cross-appellants.

HANSON, Justice. FOLLAND, C. J., and MOFFAT, LARSON, and WOLFE, JJ., concur.

OPINION [80 P.2d 340]

[95 Utah 283] HANSON, Justice.

This is an action by plaintiffs above named against all the defendants to quiet their title to an undivided one-fourth interest in the Augusta Lode Mining Claim, U.S. Lot No. 122, situate in Big Cottonwood and Uintah Mining Districts in Salt Lake and Summit counties. The defendant corporation will be referred to herein as the Silver King, and the remaining defendants in a group as "Anderson, et al."

The Silver King answered separately and counterclaimed to quiet its claim of title to the entire mining claim. The defendants Anderson et al. answered and counterclaimed for substantially a one-eighth undivided interest in the claim. Answers and replies were filed by each group against the others, and the issues were tried by the court, which found and decreed a one-eighth interest to the plaintiffs, a seven-eighth interest to the defendant Silver King, and no interest to the defendants Anderson et al.; quieting the title accordingly.

The Silver King has appealed from so much of the decree as awards any interest to the plaintiffs, while the defendants Anderson, et al., have cross-appealed from the disallowance by the decree of any interest to them. Errors and cross-errors are assigned respectively.

The evidence at the trial was chiefly documentary in the form of deeds and records in the chain of titles. In these documents and in the trial court's findings and decree, the linear foot is often or chiefly used as the unit of measurement of interests of the owners, though the equivalent thereof in fractional undivided interests is sometimes employed.

The Augusta Lode Mining Claim was located November 5, 1879, 1500 feet in length by 600 feet in width, by John G. Kennedy (750 feet), E. Covington (375 feet), and Samuel Edgerly (375 feet). Thereafter, sundry conveyances were made by the locators and their grantees so that at the time of the final certificate of purchase issued by the Land Department on application for patent, the record title appeared [95 Utah 284] to be held in undivided ownership by the following named persons in the proportions represented by the number of linear feet set opposite the name of each person viz.:

Feet	Inches
S. Edgerly	94	3
Hannah J. Kennedy	750	0
John Seager	186	6
Charles M. Wyman	93	9
Charles C. Ruthrauff	187	6
George H. Wyman	93	9
E. Covington	94	3
1500	0

On July 12, 1881, John G. Kennedy, John Seager, Charles M. Wyman, Charles C. Ruthrauff, and George H. Wyman made application for a mineral patent for said Augusta Lode. On November 22, 1881, the United States Land Office at Salt Lake City issued its Receiver's receipt to John G. Kennedy acknowledging full payment, and on the same day its final certificate of purchase of the 20.66 acres embraced in the mining claim to and in the name of the above named applicants. Thereafter, and before patent, to wit, on December 8, 1882, Hannah J. Kennedy and her husband John G. Kennedy conveyed to Louis G. Hurlburt an undivided 375 feet interest.

On December 15, 1882, the United States patent was issued to the above named applicants, which cast upon them the full legal title to said mining claim. Presumptively on the face of the record the undivided interest of each of the five patentees would be one-fifth, or 300 feet. But if restrained to the actual record interest of each as denoted by the prior conveyances, their [80 P.2d 341] respective interests at that time, as between themselves and their excluded co-owners, would be as follows:

Feet	Inches
John G. Kennedy	0	0
John Seager	186	6
Charles M. Wyman	93	9
Charles C. Ruthrauff	187	6
George H. Wyman	93	9
561	6
Excluded co-owners	938	6
Total	1500	0

[95 Utah 285] In disposing of the claims of the plaintiffs, who claim as heirs at law of Charles C. Ruthrauff, deceased, we go back to the beginning of his interests, which antedate the patent. On July 1, 1880, Samuel Edgerly (being then the owner of a 281-foot 9-inch interest) conveyed to said Charles C. Ruthrauff and George H. Wyman an undivided 187 feet 6 inches thereof, retaining 94 feet 3 inches. The effect of this deed is in dispute between the parties, especially between the defendants Silver King and Anderson, et al., to which we later recur in disposing of the cross-appeal. For the present we notice it only in its effect on the Ruthrauff interest. Thereby we hold the said Ruthrauff and George H. Wyman became each the owner of one-half of the undivided interest conveyed, or 93 feet 9 inches each.

On September 23, 1880, Charles M. Wyman (being then the record owner of an undivided 187 feet 6 inches of the claim) conveyed to said Charles C. Ruthrauff an undivided 93 feet 9 inches thereof, retaining a like interest. Thereby the said Ruthrauff became the owner of a total of 187 feet 6 inches interest on the basis of the records. Ruthrauff continued to own and hold this interest to at least as late as December 18, 1902, and it became either all or a part of his interest under the patent, as we may have occasion to consider later.

[95 Utah 286] In 1898, the Augusta Lode was assessed and sold for taxes levied in that year by Salt Lake County, and bought in by the County. In plaintiffs' brief, and in the trial court's findings, it is stated that on July 1, 1901, this tax sale certificate was by the County sold and assigned to the said Ruthrauff. We do not find in the record evidence of this fact but for the purpose of our decision we treat it as both true and proved. This tax sale and all the proceedings thereon were and are void on their face. All the parties agree about this, so we need not point out the details of invalidity.

We digress now for a moment to trace out the concurrent record interest of one Rose Brown, whose dealing with the said Ruthrauff will presently appear. On November 17, 1899, John Seager (who then owned only 186 feet 6 inches interest, unless such interest as it is contended he then held in trust for co-owners excluded from the patent be treated as enlarging the estate which he could convey), by his deed, Exhibit 12, purported to convey to the said Rose Brown an undivided one-fourth (375 feet) interest in the claim. She continued to hold such interest as she thereby acquired until after the tax sale proceedings in 1898 to which we have referred. Claiming to own a one-fourth interest under the John Seager deed, Rose Brown on November 30, 1902, redeemed a one-fourth interest in the claim from the 1898 tax sale by paying to the County one-fourth of its tax bill.

On December 18, 1902, said Charles C. Ruthrauff and Florence B., his wife, executed and delivered to the said Rose Brown their quitclaim deed, Exhibit 13, for a recited consideration of one dollar, whereby it was expressed that the first parties,--

"* * * do hereby remise, release and quitclaim unto the party of the second part, her heirs and assigns forever, all an undivided one-fourth interest in that certain lode mining claim known as the Augusta Lode mining claim * * * lot No. 122, [district, county and state].

"Together with the appurtenances and all the estate and rights of the parties of the first part in and to the said premises.

[95 Utah 287] "To have and to hold the described premises unto the said party of the second part, her heirs and assigns forever."

Thereafter, on May 28, 1903, said Charles C. Ruthrauff took an Auditor's Tax Deed (Exhibit 44) from the County for the remaining three-fourths' interest not redeemed by Brown. He thereby acquired no right, title or interest in the claim because of the invalidity of the tax sale.

So far there is no disagreement about the facts stated. But there is disagreement about the effect and consequences of the said deed, Exhibit 13, above quoted from. Plaintiffs claim that the intent, purpose and effect of that deed was merely to release to Rose Brown from the operation and effect [80 P.2d 342] of the tax sale and assignment of the certificate of purchase from the County, the one-fourth interest in the mining claim which she previously had, or claimed to have acquired, under her deed from John Seager of...