Williams v. Spurr

• Citation: 24 Mich. 335
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 03 April 1872
• Parties: William W. Williams v. John L. Spurr and others

24 Mich. 335

William W. Williams v. John L. Spurr and others

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 3, 1872

Heard January 10, 1872

Appeal in chancery from Houghton circuit.

This bill was filed by William W. Williams against John L. Spurr Thomas B. Brooks, Raphael Pumpelly, William H. Stevens and Charles H. Palmer. The defendants answered, and proofs were taken. On the hearing the bill was dismissed, and the complainant brings the case up by appeal.

Decree of the court affirmed, with costs to defendants, of both courts.

Hubbell & Chadbourne, Douglass & Miller, Sutherland &amp Wheeler, S. F. Seager and Ashley Pond, for complainant.

Wilkinson & Smith, Ball & Chandler, Moore & Griffin and George V. N. Lothrop, for defendants.

OPINION

Christiancy Ch. J.

The bill was filed to set aside a sale made by complainant to Spurr, Brooks and Pumpelly, of certain lands in Houghton county in the Upper Peninsula, described as the north half of the southwest quarter, and the south half of the northwest quarter, of section twenty-four, in township forty-eight north, of range thirty-one west, on the ground of fraudulent concealment of misrepresentation as to their character and value; complainant claiming by his bill that he was himself ignorant that they had any value as iron lands, or for mines of iron upon them, and that he believed them to have no value except for the wood and timber and that he was confirmed in this belief by the false representations of the defendants. The negotiations were by letters, set forth in the bill, and will be noticed when we consider the evidence. The false representation upon which complainant alleges he was induced to sell the lands for eight thousand dollars, consisted in the representation made by Spurr, acting in concert with Brooks and Pumpelly, that the lands were valuable for timber alone, and were wanted by the purchasers for that purpose. The fraudulent concealment alleged, is that the purchasers, knowing from previous exploration of a rich deposit of iron ore, making the lands worth two hundred thousand dollars or thereabouts, fraudulently concealed the facts from the complainant; and he alleges the truth to be that defendants purchased the lands because of the existence thereon of said rich deposits of iron and not because of their wood and timber, while they led him to believe directly the contrary.

We have carefully considered the testimony, and shall give nearly in full the correspondence leading to the sale. The balance of the testimony is in the main harmonious, but in some particulars somewhat conflicting; and instead of entering into a full analysis of it in this opinion, we shall content ourselves with stating the conclusions at which we have arrived, as we have been able to deduce them from the whole evidence.

The complainant, who resided at Manlius in the state of New York, but who had for some years been engaged in constructing the Sault canal, and other public works in that region, wishing to invest some money in mining lands, or such as would be likely to prove valuable for iron mines, in the fall of 1860, went up to Houghton county for that purpose; and being previously informed that these lands, then belonging to the United States, had iron upon them, and being situated on what was then, and is still known as the "Iron Range," went out with one Holiday, who had previously been upon the lands, and found iron there; and in company with Holliday examined the lands, found the lines, and not only found iron ore in loose boulders, or what is called "float ore," but was shown by Holliday the bed or deposit of ore in the ledge, or "in place" at several points on the lands; and though not himself an expert in such matters, complainant was satisfied it was iron, and that the lands would prove a valuable investment as iron lands; and with this view he purchased the lands of the government in October, 1860.

Though the purchase was in his own name, and the legal title of the whole remained so up to the time of sale to defendants, yet at or about the time of the purchase he sold Charles H. Palmer a one-third interest, and gave him a written agreement acknowledging that the latter had paid for the third interest, and agreeing to hold the same as trustee for him, "subject to such decision as the parties might direct from time to time."

About the same date, or shortly after, complainant bought a much larger quantity of lands, near L'Anse on the same "Iron Range," as, and for, iron lands, in part of which Palmer also was interested.

It does not appear that any offer had been made for the purchase of the lands in controversy until late in the year 1867, when Mr. C. C. Douglass (who it seems from the testimony also owned and was dealing in iron lands in that neighborhood) applied to complainant to know what he would take for the lands here in question. And on the 6th of December, 1867, complainant writes to Palmer: "I have just seen Mr C. C. Douglass, and he wanted to know what we would take for our iron property over near Lake Michigammi. I told him if you were willing, we would sell it for six thousand dollars cash; and he wanted I should write you and get an answer from you as soon as I could." It is admitted that this letter refers to the land now in dispute. On the 31st of December Palmer answers him, saying: "The land * * * consists of one hundred and sixty acres. At six thousand dollars it would be about forty dollars per acre. I would sell at six thousand dollars. What does Douglass want of it? Does he want it to go with some of his own lands? My opinion now is to sell most decidedly." He also says in a postscript: "I wish you would write me at once about the sale of iron land. Knowing what Douglass wants of it, you can tell well enough what is the most he will give for it; and that price I would take. It is generally better to do well than to wait upon the uncertainties of doing better."

For some reason not explained, no sale was made to Douglass; and it does not appear that any other offer was made to purchase until that which resulted in the sale now in controversy.

The evidence shows that these lands, without reference to the iron supposed to be upon them, were of no great or peculiar value for their timber; that lands equally valuable for timber could have been purchased in large amounts in that neighborhood, at the time of this contemplated sale to Douglass, at from two dollars and fifty cents up to five dollars per acre; and that the price of such timbered lands was but little higher when these lands were sold to defendants; that complainant never would have purchased them on account of any value they might be supposed to have as timbered lands, and that if he had considered them valuable only for their timber he would not, at the time Douglass proposed to purchase, have placed upon them a higher value than five dollars per acre, or eight hundred dollars for the one hundred and sixty acres, and would have considered it an advantageous sale at that price. But he bought them as iron lands and spoke of them as such in his correspondence with Palmer, and treated them as such in fixing the price.

In fact, we are satisfied from the evidence that the lands were then quite generally known as iron lands among intelligent men in that region, and that to several explorers and dealers in iron lands, they were at this time, or at least prior to the negotiations with defendants, known to contain the deposit of magnetic iron ore, which is now supposed to give them their peculiar value, though the parties cognizant of this were reticent about it, in hopes perhaps of some day purchasing to advantage.

We now come to the transaction which resulted in the sale in controversy.

Some time about the first of October, 1868, defendants Spurr and Brooks were on this land and found iron there, which they were satisfied rendered it valuable, though their exploration was a very slight one, of but two to four hours, a considerable portion of which was spent in the attempt to find the section line, to determine whether it was on section twenty-three or section twenty-four, where the iron was found, in which, however, at this time they failed; but they became satisfied it was near the line, and if on twenty-three, that it extended also on to section twenty-four, the lands of complainant.

On the 3d of October, 1868, defendant Spurr wrote to complainant, saying: "I have some hard wood timber lands at the west end of Lake Michigammi, and having an offer to close a large wood contract with the railroad company for a term of years, I am a little doubtful whether I have secured timber enough to fill the contract, and having seen from Banfield's map that you are owner of some timber land on section twenty-four, town forty-eight north, range thirty-one west, and having business at the Sault Ste. Marie, where I met your brother a short time since, I mentioned the matter to him, that I would like to purchase these timber lands, provided you wished to sell, and we could agree on price and terms of payment."

On the 10th of the same month, the complainant, from his residence at Manlius, replies to this letter, that he is the owner of these lands (describing them) and then proceeds to say: "I do not know as you are aware that there is a very good show of iron on this land, but still, I will sell it very reasonable, if you wish." He then tells him he will sell it for ten thousand dollars, and that he don't wish to sell any of it, unless he sells the whole; and that he may pay one-quarter down and secure the other by mortgage, and pay within one year.

Now we are entirely satisfied that this letter of Spurr, so far as it indicates a wish to purchase the land for the sake of the timber and to fill a...