Wallace v. Higgins Land Company
| Decision Date | 09 March 1917 |
| Docket Number | 20,087 - (243) |
| Citation | 161 N.W. 597,136 Minn. 278 |
| Parties | WILLIAM J. WALLACE v. HIGGINS LAND COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for St. Louis county to recover $50,000 for services rendered at the request of defendant as an explorer of timber, mineral and other lands. The case was tried before Dancer, J., who at the close of the testimony denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict for $15,000. From an order granting defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.
Mine and minerals -- action for services -- verdict not supported by evidence.
There was no evidence in this case reasonably tending to sustain a verdict for plaintiff.
Crassweller Crassweller & Blu, for appellant.
Fryberger Fulton & Spear, and Jaques & Hudson, for respondent.
The trial court granted defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of plaintiff, and the case is presented to this court on plaintiff's appeal from this order.
The ultimate question for our determination is whether there was evidence on the trial reasonably tending to sustain a verdict for plaintiff. It has been a work of some magnitude to read the very voluminous record, but it is a more difficult task to give any synopsis that will, at the same time, be reasonably brief, and still fairly state the situation as it was presented by the evidence when the case went to the jury. We have been greatly aided by the full and able briefs of counsel.
The action was to recover the reasonable value, alleged to be $50,000, of services alleged to have been rendered by plaintiff to defendant at its request between May 1, 1908, and March 1, 1912, in the investigation and discovery of matters relating to a mineral lease covering lands owned by defendant, ascertaining that the terms of this lease were financially unfavorable to defendant, so advising the officers of defendant, and recommending steps to be taken to secure a remedy. The issues on the trial were as to what services plaintiff performed for defendant, and whether it was understood that defendant was to pay plaintiff therefor.
The following is an attempt at an outline of the case as it stood when the testimony was closed:
Plaintiff has resided in Duluth since 1893, and practically all his life has been a timber explorer, doing some work at times as an explorer of mineral lands. Defendant is a Minnesota corporation, owning large land interests in the northern part of the state. Its principal office was in Olean, New York, with a branch office in Duluth. In 1901 defendant owned an undivided one-half interest in 1,346 acres of land in township 58 north of range 16, St. Louis county. September 30, 1901, it leased its undivided half interest in these lands to William J. Olcott of Duluth. This lease provided for the payment of a royalty of 20 cents per gross ton for all ore mined, thus making defendant's interest in the royalties 10 cents per ton. The minimum output provided for in the lease was 100,000 tons per annum, making the minimum royalties payable to defendant the sum of $10,000 per annum. This is the so-called "Olcott Lease," and the services for which plaintiff claims compensation were all rendered in acquainting defendant's officers with the fact that this was an unfavorable lease to the company, particularly as to the minimum to be mined each year, and in persuading them to take the steps which subsequently resulted in a new agreement, the value of which to defendant is agreed to be $1,000,000 more than the value of the original lease.
The lands covered by the lease, together with other lands in northern Minnesota, largely on the iron ranges and containing large and rich deposits of iron ore, were purchased by O. T. Higgins, of New York, in the early "eighties." He died in 1900, leaving as heirs a son Frank W. Higgins, afterwards Governor of New York, and a daughter, Mrs. Clara A. H. Smith, wife of Frank Sullivan Smith, a New York City lawyer. The lands of O. T. Higgins after his death were transferred to different corporations, among them being Higgins Land Company, the defendant in this action. Frank W. Higgins was the president of defendant until his death in 1907. Frank Sullivan Smith, husband of Clara A. H. Smith, sister of Governor Higgins, was vice president, Allan B. Williams was secretary and O. T. Higgins, Jr., a son of Governor Higgins, was treasurer. All of these officers lived in the state of New York. Governor Higgins, his son, and Williams lived in Olean, where the home office of the land company was. Frank Sullivan Smith was a New York City lawyer. Until his election as Governor, Frank W. Higgins, at all times the strong man of the company, visited Duluth many times each year and kept in close touch with the properties of the company. After his election to the governorship, his visits to Duluth were less frequent. After his death, his son, O. T. Higgins, Jr., became president of the defendant company, and held this office until he died in 1912, when Clara A. H. Smith became president. After the death of the Governor and during the presidency of his son, who was ill and paid no attention to the affairs of the company, Frank Sullivan Smith took an active part in the management of the company, but he does not appear to have held any office in the company after the death of Governor Higgins, when Frank L. Bartlett, one of the executors, succeeded him as vice president. The stock of the company was largely owned by the estate of O. T. Higgins, Clara A. H. Smith and Frank W. Higgins. Giles Gilbert of Duluth owned 11 shares and until his death May 4, 1908, represented the interests of the company in Duluth.
A few words will explain the nature of plaintiff's relations with the Higgins interests before the performance of the services for which he seeks pay in this case. Plaintiff has lived in Duluth since 1893. Practically all his life he had been a timber land explorer, and had done some work in mining exploration for interests other than the Higgins interests. He was familiar with the range and with the mining explorations there. His first connection with the Higgins people was in 1898, when he was employed by Giles Gilbert to do some "woods work." He continued to do this sort of work, exploring timber lands, estimating and selling timber and timber lands for the Higgins people for some years. He made the acquaintance of Governor Higgins in 1902, and continued in the service. He was paid in full for all services prior to those he claims compensation for in the present case. It does not appear that he was ever employed to explore mineral lands or in connection with the company's mining interests, though he may have given advice or made suggestions in regard thereto. He received his compensation for these services either in money from Mr. Gilbert or the home office, or in commissions in the case of sales. There can be no suggestion that plaintiff was ever recognized by defendant as employed by it generally to perform any services he might think necessary. This brings us down to the services for which compensation is sought in this action.
In January, 1908, plaintiff went to New York and met Frank Sullivan Smith and Mrs. Smith. He went again in May, 1908, and on this occasion claims to have had a talk with Frank Sullivan Smith in his office, and to have told him of the great value of the lands owned by defendant, and covered by the Olcott lease. Plaintiff claims that he went east expressly to see Mr. Smith on the matter of the value of the company's lands on the range, and the improvidence of the terms of the Olcott lease. There is evidence that plaintiff's trip was for another purpose, and that his visit to Mr. Smith was merely incidental, but we must take the view of this circumstance that is most favorable to plaintiff. He makes no claim, however, that he was requested by anyone connected with the Higgins' interests to take the trip or advise them as to the value of their ore lands. He was purely a volunteer. The substance of the alleged conversation with Mr. Smith in his New York office in May, 1908, may be stated thus: Plaintiff, who had become familiar with recent mining operations in the vicinity of the leased lands, claims to have discovered that the ore formation, contrary to what was shown on old maps, extended south so as to include the leased lands, told this in detail to Mr. Smith, explaining the developments of the past few years in the vicinity of the lands, and exhibiting a geological map which showed the ore body extending to the south. Plaintiff claims that this was all new to Mr. Smith and the Higgins people; that they had not kept in touch with the situation, and that he woke them up. He testifies that Mr. Smith told him that he greatly appreciated his coming down there, and that he would "see him well paid." Mr. Smith denies making any such statement. This is but the briefest outline of the conversation, but it will suffice for the present. It is this trip, and the information given in this conversation, that largely form the basis of plaintiff's claim to having performed services for defendant for which payment was promised.
The next services which plaintiff performed were in connection with a trip to the range of Mr. Smith, Mrs. Smith, Mr Williams, secretary of defendant, and Mr. Bartlett and Mr. Franchot, the executors of the Frank W. Higgins' estate. Plaintiff claims Mr. Smith had stated in March that he would arrange this trip, would notify plaintiff of the time and would see him when the trip was made. Smith wrote plaintiff in June that he would advise him when the trip was to be made, and Mr. Williams wrote plainti...
To continue reading
Request your trial