CRESCENT MINING CO. V. WASATCH MINING CO., 151 U. S. 317 (1894)Subscribe to Cases that cite 151 U. S. 317
U.S. Supreme Court
Crescent Mining Co. v. Wasatch Mining Co., 151 U.S. 317 (1894)
Crescent Mining Company v. Wasatch Mining Company
Argued December 21, 1893
Decided January 22, 1894
151 U.S. 317
A. commenced an action against B. in Utah, to recover possession of a tract of mining land. C., desiring to purchase the disputed tract, agreed with B. to purchase it, a part of the purchase money to be paid at the signing of the agreement (which was done), and the balance to be paid on delivery of the deed, after determination of the action in favor of B., C. to go into possession at once, but not to remove any ores until delivery of the deed. A., on his part, then sold the disputed premises to C. By a subsequent agreement, C. agreed to pay the consideration therefor to A. in a year, if the suit should be determined in favor of A. in that time, and if not then determined, to pay the purchase money into court in the action of A. against B. By the same agreement, the property was mortgaged by C. to A. to secure its performance. The money not having been paid into court under the last agreement, A. brought a suit to foreclose the mortgage in which it was alleged that the action by A. against B. was still pending and undetermined, and that C. had not paid the amount into court, and by which was prayed a decree for such payment chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
and for foreclosure and sale. The defendant demurred, and, the demurrer being overruled, answered setting up an alleged fraudulent conspiracy whereby the most valuable parts of the lands agreed to be conveyed by A. to C. had been omitted from the deeds. The answer also set up that C. had commenced a suit against A. to compel a reformation of the deed, in which a decree for reformation had been made below, and that the suit was pending in this Court on appeal. Issue being taken on this answer, it was decreed that A. was entitled to have the amount of the mortgage debt, with interest, paid into court in the suit between A. and B., and for a decree of foreclosure. This decree, on appeal to the supreme court of the territory, was modified by allowing thirty days for the payment of the money before advertising the property for sale and by providing that the money should be paid into court in the foreclosure suit, instead of in the action of A. against B., until an order could be obtained in that case for the deposit of the money. Held that in all this there was no error.
In the year 1883, the Wasatch Mining Company, a corporation under the laws of Utah Territory, brought an action in the District Court for the Third Judicial District of that territory against William and Joseph A. Jennings to recover possession of a certain tract of mining land situated in Uintah Mining District, Summit County. That action was at the time of the events subsequently narrated, and still is, pending and undecided.
The Crescent Mining Company, likewise a corporation organized under the laws of Utah Territory, desiring to purchase said disputed tract of land, on March 8, 1883, entered into an agreement in writing with Jennings whereby, after reciting the fact that the action was pending between the Wasatch Mining Company and Jennings, it was agreed that the Crescent Mining Company should purchase the said tract and pay therefor $50,000, of which $7,500 were paid at the time of the signing of the agreement and the balance when the deed was delivered, which latter event was to take place when the said action should be determined, and if the same should be decided in favor of Jennings; that in the meantime the deed should be deposited with the Deseret National Bank of Salt Lake City; that the Crescent Mining Company should forthwith go into possession, but until the delivery of the deed should not remove out of the premises described in the deed any metal chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
or ores of value. It was also provided that the Crescent Company might at any time, at its option, pay the balance of the purchase money into the said bank and lift the deed.
On July 9, 1886, the Crescent Mining Company entered into an agreement in writing with the Wasatch Mining Company whereby the latter sold and conveyed to the former company the premises in dispute, and the latter agreed to pay therefor $42,500, and on September 1, 1886, a further agreement in the nature of a mortgage was entered into between the two companies, referring to the pending litigation between the Wasatch Company and Jennings and providing that the Crescent Company would pay to the Wasatch Company the said sum of $42,500 in one year from the date thereof, absolutely, if at said time the said suit should be determined in favor of the said Wasatch Company, but if said action should still be pending, undetermined, then said purchase money should be paid into said court in said action, recognized by order thereof, to be disposed of as follows: to be paid to the Wasatch Company on the final determination of said suit in its favor, and subject to be repaid to the Crescent Mining Company on its request if said action should be finally, and on its merits, determined adversely to the Wasatch Company. And in case default should be made in the payment of said purchase money, then the Wasatch Company was authorized to sell the said premises in the manner prescribed by law, and out of the proceeds to pay said purchase money, with costs, and a reasonable attorney's fee for collection, the surplus, if any, to be paid to the Crescent Mining Company.
The present suit was brought to foreclose this mortgage, the complaint alleging that the suit of Wasatch Co. v. Jennings was still pending and undetermined, and that the Crescent Mining Company had not paid the amount into court, and asking for judgment for $42,500, with interest from one year after the date of said mortgage, with attorney's fee, and for a decree of foreclosure and sale.
The defendant demurred to this complaint on the ground that it did not allege that the plaintiff had obtained an order for the payment of the purchase money into court or that chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
such order had been made and that defendant had then refused, or that any demand had ever been made upon defendant for payment, and that it appeared on the face of the complaint that defendant, not being a party to the suit of Wasatch Company v. Jennings, could not appear in that case, and ask for an order permitting the payment into court.
This demurrer was overruled, and the Crescent Company answered, and alleged that the mortgage sued on had been given to secure the purchase money of certain described mining grounds; that, owing to a fraudulent conspiracy between the defendant's manager and certain agents of the plaintiff, the most valuable part of the lands purchased had been omitted from the deed, and then added the facts showing that the Crescent Company could not, of itself, obtain an order to pay the purchase money into court, and that the Wasatch Company had never obtained such an order, and had never made any demand.
The answer further averred that