Haster v. Blair

TUTTLE, J.

This action was brought to -recover possession of certain mining machinery, tools and equipment. Findings were made in favor of plaintiff upon all issues, and judgment was entered in his favor for such possession, together with damages for the detention of said property. Defendants Blair and Metallic Mines, a corporation, appeal from the judgment, and also from an order denying their motion for new trial.

In 1929, J. W. Newell held under lease from A. G. Metz, certain mining property known as the “Longfellow Group”. He was also, at that time, the owner of an adjoining claim known as the “Coolidge Mining Claim”. During that year Newell organized what is designated as the “Newell Syndicate”, the nature and character of which is not described in the record. It does appear, however, that he sold “units” in said claims, the exact number of which is not shown. Such units were conveyed by a grant and assignment of an undivided l/60th interest in and to the said lease from Metz, and in the Coolidge Claim owned by Newell. The deed covered all interest of the first party “in machinery and equipment used in connection with said claim or any of the above described properties”. Newell remained in possession of said claims at all times, and operated the same for the “unit” holders. One of said “units” was sold to Metz, who thereafter assigned it to appellants. The record shows that plaintiff received one of said “units”.

On October 31, 1931, J. W. Newell and four other “unit” holders executed a chattel mortgage to plaintiff, covering the following described personal property situated upon said mining properties:

1 Ingersoll Rand Compressor;

1 Rock Crusher and Motor;

1 complete ten stamp mill and motors;

1 tool sharpener;

[898]

2 electric water pumps;

1 Blacksmith shop and all equipment therein;

2000 feet car rails.

The mortgage was foreclosed, and plaintiff herein acquired whatever title the mortgagors had to said property. Two-thirds of the “unit” holders joined in the execution of said mortgage. Appellants, who were not parties thereto, refused to give possession, and this action was therefore brought.