White v. Crow

• Decision Date: 25 June 1883
• Parties: WHITE, Agent, v. CROW and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Colorado

17 F. 98

WHITE, Agent, v. CROW and others.

United States Circuit Court, D. Colorado.

June 25, 1883

HALLETT J., (orally.)

In the year 1881 the Brittenstein Mining Company owned six or eight mining claims in the county of Chaffee. In the course of its operations it had incurred debts which it was unable to pay amounting in all to $5,000 or $6,000; and early in the following year, 1882, these claims were put into judgments by the parties who held them. There were five of these judgments, and upon three of them sales were made of the property of the company during the month of June, 1882. The delay in execution of the judgment was procured by the officers of the company, through some negotiations carried on with a view to the settlement of the demands. One of these judgments was obtained by Joseph R. Crow, upon a claim assigned to him by John B. Henslee, who was a stockholder in the Brittenstein Company, and the agent of the company in this state to receive service, appointed by the company pursuant to the statute of the state. He at one time had something to do with the management of the company, but at the time that he assigned his demand to Crow, and at the time judgment was entered on that demand, he had no official connection with the company, but was in correspondence with its officers, residing in New York, in respect to the settlement of these claims. He assigned his demand against the company on the first day of January, 1880, or about that time, and on the ninth day of that month Crow brought suit and served his process upon Henslee, as the agent of the company in the state. Four days later, on the thirteenth of January, Henslee appeared in the county court of Lake county in which the suit was brought, and confessed judgment in favor of Crow against the company for the demand, amounting to $1,794.33. No execution was issued upon this judgment, or upon the other judgments, until some time in the month of June following, or if executions were issued no sale was made until that time. I have not inquired as to the date of executions.

The time for the redemption of the property expired in December of the same year. Proceedings were had in a court of the state of New York, upon which the property of the company was sold by a receiver to Mr. John D. White, plaintiff in the bill in equity, on which a decree is now to be entered. Mr. White was also a stockholder in the Brittenstein Company; he was at one time its president. At the time of these transactions he was a director of the company, and at the time of these proceedings in the court of New York, also; and if the company was still in existence-- of which I am not advised-- after the sale of the property, he was still a director. In December following, as a purchaser of the property, he telegraphed to Mr. Smith, an attorney residing at Denver,-- I think, on the sixth of December,-- to proceed to Leadville and Buena Vista, to confer with parties there-- among others, Mr. Henslee-- in respect to claims and demands against this property, with a view to redeem from the sales which had been made on judgments obtained against the Brittenstein Company, as I have stated. An interview took place between Mr. Henslee and Mr. Smith on the seventh of December, in reference to these matters, in which something was stated as to these several demands against the company, and some things, which were not stated, it was agreed might be ascertained from the records of Chaffee county at Buena Vista, to which Mr. Smith proposed to proceed for the purpose of getting full particulars in respect to matters in which he was acting for Mr. White. Among other matters discussed at that time was a demand on the part of Henslee against the Brittenstein Company, and Mr. White, as the successor of that company, for annual work done on the claims of the company during the years 1881 and 1882. Henslee represented that some of this work had been done, and some of it was still in progress; he expected to have evidence of its completion in a day or two to present to Mr. Smith, and if the property was to be redeemed he desired to have the money so expended refunded to him.

At this point it may be proper to state, also, that while Mr. Henslee had been corresponding with the officers of the Brittenstein Company, in New York, and with Mr. White, plaintiff in this suit, to some extent as to the settlement of these claims, he had also been acting for certain parties in St. Louis and Leadville-- five or six of them,-- all, I believe, but one,-- had been stockholders in the company, and had agreed together to unite in the purchase of the several claims against the company with a view to secure the property; to protect the interest which they had in the company; to protect themselves in respect to moneys which they had expended in behalf of the company, and so on. It seems to have been thought desirable on the part of all persons who were connected with these affairs to get this property; the property was much more valuable than the demand against it, and any one who should secure it would be able to realize something in addition to the claims which were made against it. With that view these parties-- Noel, of St. Louis, and Loker and Simmons-- I don't know who all-- had appointed Mr. Henslee to communicate with the owners of these claims and purchase them, and he had done so. He assumed to act and did act for them in the settlement of these claims, so far as they could be settled. He did not deny Mr. Smith's right, or Mr. White's right, to redeem the property at the time, and in the manner provided by law, nor conceal his connection with the parties for whom he was acting. It seems to have been contended by counsel for plaintiff that his position in attempting to act for parties in New York, and at the same...