Barandun v. Barandun Min. Etc. Co.
Before: Melvin
Synopsis
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
MELVIN, J.
Plaintiffs brought suit to quiet their title to certain real property and to have a certain contract between plaintiffs and defendant declared void. Judgment was given in favor of plaintiffs. Defendant appeals therefrom, and also from 'an order denying its motion for a new trial.
There is no denial by defendant that the record title to the land is in plaintiffs. The contract between the parties to this suit was one with reference to the property, and it recited that a deed of conveyance had been executed by plaintiffs and placed in escrow, there to remain until the sum of thirty thousand dollars should be paid as set out in-the agreement. This deed by its terms conveyed oné hundred and sixty-five acres of land in Siskiyou County to defendant. Upon the property was the “Little Maggie Quartz Mine.” The purchase price was to be paid as follows: One thousand two hundred dollars on the execution of the contract, eight hundred dollars in sixty days, and the balance out of twenty per cent of the gross output of the mine. Payment was to be made in five years, unless the veins and values of ore should not continue in depth, in which event defendant was to be allowed two years longer to complete the payment of the pur
[252]
chase price. There were certain important covenants, one to the effect that the Barandun Mining and Milling Company would “fit up the mill with ore bins, rock brakes and a complete set of Rossman’s Gold Cleaning Machinery,” and would continue development work on the property at such rate as to keep the mill in operation provided the corporation, with due diligence, should find ores sufficiently valuable, and provided it should not be prevented from such work by unavoidable accidents. This was immediately followed by a covenant reciting that ‘ ‘ abandonment of work for a period of six months at any one time,
except as above,
on said property” should operate as a forfeiture of the company’s rights. (The italics are not in the original contract.) It was agreed that the property should be kept free from debts and liens on account of any development or other work done by the mining company or its agent. The agreement also required the company to make a report of its gross earnings to Barandun and Rostetter four times a year. This agreement was executed November 14, 1911.
More from California Supreme Court
- People v. Wende (1979)
- People v. Watson (1956)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996)
- People v. Kelly (2006)
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001)
- People v. Lewis (2021)
- In Re Estrada (1965)
- Denham v. Superior Court (1970)
- People v. Marsden (1970)