70 Minn. 23 | Minn. | 1897
A full statement of certain facts covered by the findings herein, and in our opinion supported by the evidence adduced upon the
June 20,1893, one Luther, who had been the owner of the 80 acres in question for some time, executed a mining lease thereof, in which one Hibbing and one Trimble were named as lessees; a royalty of 30 cents per ton on a minimum annual output of ten thousand tons of ore being agreed upon. This lease extended for twenty years, and was assignable. It was executed under the terms of an option for a lease previously executed and delivered by Luther to Hibbing and Trimble, and, as a matter of fact, the latter had, while the option was held by them, assigned a two-thirds interest therein to these plaintiffs and another person, the defendant Brandin. The instrument contained the usual conditions of a mining lease, the lessees, Hibbing and Trimble, agreeing to commence explorations within thirty days from date, and to “work continuously during the existence of this lease.” Proceeding, the instrument recited that said lessees “shall work the mine to its fullest capacity at all times,” and that “the failure thereof shall become a forfeiture of this lease.” It further provided that the lessees were to pay the royalty fixed by the lease quarterly, namely, April 15, July 15, October 15, and January 15, each year; the minimum quarterly payment being $750, whether ore was or was not mined. The lessees were also to pay all taxes assessed or levied on the 80 acres within thirty days after such taxes fell due and payable. Provision was made for the termination of the lease by the lessees in so far as they were obliged to pay royalty or taxes, by giving thirty days’ notice to the lessor, whereupon the lease ended; all arrearages of royalty or taxes to be forthwith paid.
This lease was never recorded. The contract whereby the lessees had assigned a two-thirds interest in the option for a lease to these plaintiffs and Brandin bore date January 20, 1893, and made provision for the work of exploration. It expired July 1, 1893. Immediately upon its execution, plaintiffs and Brandin entered upon the 80, for the purpose of exploring for ore, and continued their explorations and search until about October, 1893, when they ceased work, and removed all tools and machinery therefrom. No work
About December 17, 1894, — more than fourteen months after Hibbing, Trimble, and defendant Hall and his associates had abandoned all work upon the premises, — all of the parties just named' joined in the execution and delivery to defendant Marble, who was a stockholder in defendant corporation, of a written instrument, whereby, after reciting the existence of the lease, and that a demand had been made that they surrender the same because they had abandoned all work upon the premises, they returned and surrendered to Luther all of their right, title, and interest in the lease and in the real property covered thereby. On the same day, but as of date January 1, 1895, plaintiffs Hall, Carlson, and Anderson and said Brandin executed and delivered their notes, payable to Luther, each for $500, and due in 30, 60, and 90 days, respectively, a total of $1,500, — much less than was due as royalty under the surrendered lease. Marble also drew another mining lease, wherein the mining company was the lessor and the four persons just named were lessees, covering the 80 acres here involved and other lands. This was also a 20-years lease, with conditions similar to those of the lease just canceled. It had other and further conditions, among them one to the effect that cessation of work upon explorations for twenty days at any one time before ore was found and exposed should, at the option of the lessor, work a forfeiture of the lease. Twenty thousand tons was the minimum number of tons the lessees were to mine annually, and they were to pay for this number at the rate of 25 cents per ton, the total payment to be not less than $5,000 annually, payable in instalments of $1,250 every three months, commencing April 20. It was also stipulated that, if the lessees should keep men steadily at work exploring and developing the lands, the royalty, sometimes called “ground rent,” should be reduced to $3,000 per year until July 1, 1896. This lease was signed by the four lessees at Duluth on December 2Ó, 1894.
These documents were all forwarded to the officers of the company for acceptance or rejection. Marble did not pretend to act for the company, but rather as a friend of the plaintiffs and Brandin. January 2, 1895, the defendant company by its officers executed the lease, and forwarded it to Marble for delivery to the lessees upon the conditions that they should enter upon the land by February 1, and continuously carry on the work of exploration for iron ore, should pay up the accrued taxes on the 80 acres, and should pay the notes for $1,500, all to mature within 90 days. The notes were also sent to Marble. The officers of the company expressly advised Marble that the lease was not to be delivered or become operative until these conditions were complied with.
The lease was never delivered. Neither of the lessees ever entered upon the land, ever carried on the work of exploration, ever paid the taxes, ever paid any part of the notes, ever paid one cent of the royalty or ground rent provided for in either lease, were unable to do any or either of these things, and in July, 1895, advised
About August 1, 1895, the latter entered into an option contract for a ruining lease upon this land with one Cheesebrough, who on August 5 took possession of the premises, entered upon the same with men and machinery, continued in possession, and discovered and disclosed the existence of large bodies of iron ore, and developed a very valuable iron mine. Cheesebrough transferred his rights under the option contract to third persons, not parties to this action, and on December 23, 1895, these persons purchased the land from the mining company, duly receiving a conveyance therefor, which was placed upon record prior to January 1, 1896, at which time this action was brought. The premises were continuously occupied by Cheesebrough and his successors in interest from the time he took the option contract down to the day this action was commenced. Plaintiffs and defendant Brandin well knew of the entry and occupation of the premises by Cheesebrough, and of the work he was engaged in and prosecuting. They made no objections, but permitted him to proceed without protest. They never questioned his right to discover and develop an iron mine, or to deal with the mining company with reference to the land.
Brandin, it was alleged in the complaint, had transferred his rights in the lease to plaintiffs, but on the trial no effort was made to prove this, and the finding was that he had not. His position at the trial was in accord with that taken by his co-defendants, and upon his own motion the case was dismissed as to him. While the complaint averred a tender to the mining company of the amount due upon the lease for the first year, no evidence was introduced in support of such averment, and it was without foundation.
According to the statement of plaintiffs’ counsel found in their brief, this was an equitable action to have plaintiffs’ interest under
The argument of counsel was based upon these propositions. It is their claim that from the evidence, and especially from the language of the new lease, it conclusively appeared that the surrender of the first lease was based upon an execution and delivery of the second; that there was bnt one transaction in December, 189á, and that the new lease was unconditionally substituted for the old, so that no condition to its delivery could be imposed. The contention of defendants’ counsel upon this is that the surrender and cancellation of the first lease and the execution and delivery of the notes were in themselves a -complete transaction wholly independent of the negotiations for the second lease; that these negotiations were conducted by Marble at plaintiffs’ request; that the defendant company had the absolute right to fix conditions precedent to a delivery; that these conditions were fixed; that the plaintiffs failed to observe them, and by affirmative action abandoned all interest in the lease and land, and surrendered all claim thereto.
We need not determine as between these claims. And we assume, without deciding, that plaintiffs’ counsel are right, and that the new lease was designed as a substitute for the old, was but a continuation thereof, and a delivery could not be burdened with the conditions referred to. With this assumption the real object of plaintiffs’ action is to compel specific performance of the terms and conditions imposed upon defendant company in its lease. We then have a case in which it stands confessed that plaintiffs were required by a mining lease promptly to enter upon real property, to make steady and continued explorations for mineral, to work actively in an attempt to discover iron ore, to develop a mine supposed tp
The plainest principles of equity forbid relief under such circumstances. The plaintiffs are not entitled to any benefit from the agreements which they have so flagrantly violated. To give them the relief demanded would violate the principle that one seeking the aid of equity must himself do equity, — must act in accordance with equity. Diligence is also expected of one who seeks equitable relief, for if, through unnecessary and unexplained delay, the value of the property involved has greatly increased or the circumstances of the parties have been changed, so that an injustice will be done
On these facts plaintiffs had no standing in court. We need not specially refer to any of plaintiffs’ assignments of error.
The order of the trial court stands affirmed^