Sing You v. Wong Free Lee
| Decision Date | 31 December 1902 |
| Parties | SING YOU, Plaintiff and appellant, v. WONG FREE LEE, Hiram B. Young, Defendants and respondents, Wong Buck, Wong Nim, Kai Hock and Wong Hoy, Interveners. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Lawrence County, SD
Affirmed
McLaughlin & McLaughlin, Deadwood, SD
Attorneys for appellant.
No brief filed by respondent.
Opinion filed December 31, 1902
The plaintiff, Sing You, a Chinaman, brings this action against the defendants Young and Wong Free Lee to compel them to convey to him a one-eighth interest in certain quartz lodes situated near Deadwood, in the county of Lawrence, of which he claims he is the owner. The defendants deny that he is the owner of the one-eighth interest in the property, but admit that he is the owner of a one-sixteenth interest therein, and allege that they have delivered to him a deed for that interest. Four other Chinamen Wong Buck, Wong Nim, Kai Hock and Wong Hoy—claim to be the owners of the one-sixteenth interest in the said claims involved in this action, and have been allowed to file a complaint in intervention therefor. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and it found the facts in favor of the defendants and interveners, and concludes as matter of law that the interveners are the owners of an undivided one-sixteenth interest in the property described in the complaint, that Wong Free Lee holds the record title to the said property in trust for the interveners, and that the action should be dismissed as to the plaintiff. From the judgment and order denying a new trial the plaintiff has appealed to this court.
The appellant contends that the court erred in finding the facts in favor of the defendants and interveners, for the reason that the evidence does not justify the same, and this is the only question discussed in the appellant’s brief. The evidence discloses that in 1893 the defendant Hiram B. Young was the owner of a one-eight interest in the mining claims in controversy, and the defendant Wong Free Lee six-eighths, and that the plaintiff received a deed for a one eighth interest in the said claims, for which $1,500 was paid by Wong Free Lee, acting, as the plaintiff claims, for him solely, and, as the defendants claim, acting for the plaintiff and the four interveners. The one eighth interest, together with the six eighths owned by the defendant Wong Free Lee, was conveyed to Hiram B. Young to enable him to secure a patent therefor in his own name, and he entered into a written agreement with the plaintiff to reconvey to him the said one-eighth interest. While the proceedings for patent were pending, the plaintiff left for China, where he remained three years or more. While he was absent, and after the patent was issued, Wong Free Lee obtained from the said defendant Young a deed to himself for his six-eighths interest, and also the one-half of the one-eighth interest claimed by the plaintiff; and when the plaintiff returned from China and demanded a deed for the one-eighth interest he was informed by the said Young that he had conveyed one-half of the said interest to Wong Free Lee, and refused to convey to him any more than a one-sixteenth interest. The plaintiff testified that Wong Free Lee made the purchase for him, and that he drew from the bank, and gave to the said Lee, $500 in cash, and requested the said Lee to pay the balance from the sum due from him (Lee) to the said plaintiff, which the plaintiff claims was $2,100. It clearly appears from the evidence of the plaintiff that he had no knowledge of the amount that Lee paid for the property out of the money due him, and his theory that he paid $1,500 for the one-eighth interest is based entirely upon his claim that he paid $500 cash and his belief that Wong Free Lee advanced the $1,000 out of the money he claims was due him. Wong Free Lee, on the other hand, testified that in paying for the interest he paid only $750 for the plaintiff, and that the other $750 was money furnished by the interveners, who were also parties to the purchase, and that the deed was taken in the name of the plaintiff for the reason that he had advanced a larger sum, and had a larger interest, than either of the other four. Lee denied that at the time of the purchase he was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $2,100, or in any sum in excess of $1,062.85, and that, subsequent to paying $375 for him on the purchase, he advanced to the plaintiff several hundred dollars to pay the expenses of his trip to China, and paid out the balance for work on the claim. The plaintiff admits that he received several hundred dollars from Lee, but claims that it only constituted the balance due after advancing the $1,000 to make up the amount for his interest in the mining claims. The plaintiff produced no books or vouchers showing that the defendant Lee was indebted to...
To continue reading
Request your trial