Waterman v. Banks
Decision Date | 28 March 1892 |
Citation | 12 S.Ct. 646,144 U.S. 394,36 L.Ed. 479 |
Parties | WATERMAN v. BANKS |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
This appeal brings up for review a decree requiring R. W. Waterman, the original defendant, to convey, free from incumbrance, to Abbie L. Waterman, the original plaintiff, and the widow and assignee of J. S. Waterman, an undivided twentyfour one-hundredths of certain mining property in San Bernardino county, Cal., and also to pay to her the sum of $42,987.22, which was adjudged to be the amount of profits derived from that property, with the interest that accrued thereon prior to January 10, 1888. 27 Fed. Rep. 827.
J. S. Waterman and R. W. Waterman were brothers; the former of large wealth, and a citizen of Illinois, and the latter of limited means, and a citizen of California, engaged with one Porter in 'prospecting' and developing mining property. R. W. Waterman and Porter having acquired certain mining claims or interests in San Bernardino county, Cal., the former wrote a letter to his brother, under date of April 5, 1881, which seems to be the beginning of the transactions out of which the present litigation arose. The writer said:
It does not appear that any formal reply was made to this letter; but it does appear that J. S. Waterman was in California the succeeding month, and took from his brother an obligation, of which the following is a copy:
'R. W. WATERMAN.'
This was the obligation, the specific performance of which was required by the decree below.
An obligation of like character as to date and terms was taken by J. S. Waterman from Porter with respect to an undivided three one-hundredths of the same property.
Prior to, but, perhaps, in expectation of, the execution of these writings, J. S. Waterman advanced to his prother and Porter the sum of $1,817, and, subsequently, other sums, the aggregate amount of advancements, on the 22d day of November, 1881, being $26,317, exclusive of interest. For each sum so advanced, J. S. Waterman took the notes of R. W. Waterman and Porter. It also appeared that when the writings of May 14, 1881, were given, R. W. Waterman was indebted to J. S. Waterman in the sum of $11,750.53 for moneys loaned; but R. W. Waterman contended that, if all matters of business between them had been settled, he would not have been then indebted to his brother in any sum whatever.
J. S. Waterman died July 19, 1883, having made a will, which was dated November 28, 1870. That will provided, among other things, that any and all noties, bills, accounts, agreements, or other evidence of indebtedness against any of his brothers, held by the testator at his decease, be canceled by his executors, and delivered up to the maker or makers without payment of the same, or any part thereof, except two notes against John C. Waterman, secured by a deed of trust on lands, which were to be collected and equally divided between his brothers and sisters, and the children of such as had died. By a codicil to the will, of date December 7, 1872, his brother R. W. Waterman was substituted as executor, in place of George S. Robinson.
Upon the paper of May 14, 1881, given by R. W. Waterman, appears the following indorsement: In March, 1883, the paper with this indorsement upon it was presented to R. W. Waterman, and he refused to sign it. At that time there was a balance of about $11,000 due J. S. Waterman on the notes given by R. W. Waterman and Porter. Portersigned a similar indorsement on the writing of May 14, 1881, executed by him; but the evidence satisfactorily shows that he did this only to indicate his willingness that that paper should stand as security simply for the moneys advanced by J. S. Waterman.
All the moneys advanced to R. W. Waterman and Porter were repaid out of the proceeds of the mining property before the institution of this suit, the principal part before and the balance after the death of J. S. Waterman.
No demand was made upon R. W. Waterman or Porter at any time within 12 months after May 14, 1881, for a conveyance, nor until after the death of J. S. Waterman. This suit and the decree below proceeded upon the general ground that the writing of May 14, 1881, was intended to pass, and was accepted as passing, a present interest of 24-100 in the property covered by its provisions, and required R. W. Waterman to convey such interest at any time before or after the expiration of 12 months from that date, on the demand by J. S. Waterman, his heirs, administrators, or assigns, of a conveyance. The defendant disputed this interpretation of that instrument, and insisted that it was given and accepted only as security for such moneys as J. S. Waterman might advance for the development or management of this property. Geo. F. Edmunds, for appellants.
C. C. Bonney and E. W. McGraw, for appellees.
We cannot assent to the view taken by the court below. The bill alleges—and the evidence fully sustains the allegation—that when the writing in question was given the title to this property was in dispute, and that its development and improvement involved the expenditure of large sums, great risk of the total loss of everything invested in it, and uncertainty of profit. Under these circumstances, J. S. Waterman, according to the decided preponderance of the evidence, did not wish to be come a part owner of the property, or to incur the responsibility of developing and managing it in conjunction with his brother and Porter. He was entirely willing, indeed, anxious, to assist his brother, but was not willing, at the outset, to take an interest in the property, or to become connected with them in business. His chief concern then was to secure the repayment of sums advanced and to be advanced by him to his brother and Porter for the development of the property, postponing to a future time the decision of the question as to whether he would take an interest in the property, as suggested in the letter of April 5, 1881. If it proved to be valuable he would incur no responsibility by becoming a part owner, and uniting with his brother and Porter in its development and management. If it proved to be worthless, and if his brother and Porter were unable to meet their notes, he would only lose, and, as he possessed large wealth, could afford to lose, the sums advanced by him. These were the objects he had in view when he prepared and obtained from his brother the writing of May 14, 1881. That writing evidently contemplated that, 'out of the development of the above property,' that is, out of its earnings, were to be paid the expenses incurred in providing machinery, in making improvements, etc. These expenses were to be met, in the first instance, by the moneys advanced by J. S. Waterman to his brother and Porter. They could not have been otherwise paid; for the resources of R. W. Waterman and Porter were very limited, and the property had not then been sufficiently developed to become itself the basis of borrowing large sums from banks, or from individual lenders of money. All this is manifest from the facts in the case.
But it is clear from the face of the writing, without calling to our aid the circumstances under which it was executed, that J. S. Waterman did not stipulate for a present interest in the property. It was drawn so as not to give him an interest, as owner, during...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
J. W. Denio Milling Company v. Malin
... ... 118, 67 P. 464; Hixson Map ... Co. v. Nebr. Post Co., 98 N.W. 872; Carstens v ... McDonald, 38 Neb. 858, 57 N.W. 757; King v ... Waterman, 55 Neb. 324, 75 N.W. 830; Nat. Supply Co ... v. U. K. P. C. Co., 138 P. 599; Chapman v. Kans ... City, C. & S. R. Co., 48 S.W. 647; Holden v ... 134 S.W. 68, 33 L.Ed. 818; Wilson v. Roots, 119 Ill ... 379, 10 N.E. 204; Carter v. Phillips, 144 Mass. 100, ... 10 N.E. 500; Waterman v. Banks, 144 U.S. 394, 36 ... L.Ed. 644; Fratt v. Daniels-Jones Co., 47 Mont. 487, ... 133 P. 700; Curtis v. Parham, 49 Mont. 140, 140 P ... 511; ... ...
-
Brown v. Wilson
... ... Richardson v. Hardwick, 106 U.S. 252, 1 S.Ct. 213, ... 27 L.Ed. 145; Litz v. Goosling, 93 Ky. 185, 19 S.W ... 527, 21 L. R. A. 129; Waterman v. Banks, 144 U.S. 394, 12 ... S.Ct. 646, 36 L.Ed. 479." ... And it ... makes no difference whether the lease contains a ... ...
-
Curtis v. Sexton
... ... not so much as a silken thread." Hollman v ... Conlon, 143 Mo. 369; Brown v. Massy, 138 Mo ... 519; Durrett v. Hook, 8 Mo. 374; Waterman v ... Banks, 144 U.S. 394. Where the contract does not fix the ... time within which it may be performed, the law implies that ... it shall be ... ...
-
Brown v. Wilson
...v. Hardwick, 106 U.S. 252, 1 S. Ct. 213, 27 L. Ed. 145; Litz v. Goosling, 93 Ky. 185, 19 S.W. 527, 21 L.R.A. 129; Waterman v. Banks, 144 U.S. 394, 12 S. Ct. 646, 36 L. Ed. 479." ¶8 And it makes no difference whether the lease contains a forfeiture clause or not, or whether it is an "unless"......