Eaton v. Rocca

Foote, C. The plaintiff, Eaton, instituted this action against John Eocca and J. B. Eicheri, for the purpose of obtaining a judgment against Eocca for money alleged to be due the plaintiff for work and labor performed by him as a miner in and about a mine alleged to be the property of Eocca, and for the value of the board of certain laborers, etc. The complaint further sought to enforce the lien of Eaton as a miner upon the mine mentioned therein as the property of Eocca. It was also alleged in that pleading that Eicheri claimed “some interest ” in the mine, and that the debt due to the plaintiff had been contracted with Eicheri as the superintendent of the mine, acting as the duly empowered agent of Eocca. ■

According to the evidence the plaintiff had been employed by Eicheri, in his individual capacity, to work as a miner, and to board certain laborers, etc. With this contract and the work done under it, Eocca had nothing whatever to do, and was in no way privy thereto. It was a matter exclusively between Eicheri and the plaintiff. The only interest which Eicheri had in Eocca’s mine was that Eocca had agreed that if the mine should be sold, that he, Eicheri, should have from the proceeds [95]thereof any balance that was left after Eocca had realized from the sale of his own property what he should be out of pocket by reason of his former advancements to Eicheri, by the transfer of certain mortgages upon the mine, which last was bought by Eocca at a foreclosure sale had under and by virtue of those' mortgages.

The hope that something valuable might be developed in the mine by working it to some extent, seems to have animated Eicheri to employ the plaintiff to work it on certain conditions; and it seems to have been Eicheri’s expectation that in some way the mine might be advantageously sold, Eocca be reimbursed for all that the mine had cost him, and he, Eicheri, and the plaintiff get something out of it. But with all this the defendant Eocca had nothing to do, never having known of it, and never having empowered Eicheri to act as his superintendent or agent, or held him out as such.

The evidence is conflicting, and the findings should • not be disturbed.

According to them the allegation in the complaint that Eocca is the owner of the mine was fully proved. But the allegations that the plaintiff was employed by Eicheri as Eocca’s duly authorized agent and the superintendent of his mine are not proved; but the contrary is shown, and it is found that the plaintiff made his contract with Eicheri, not acting as agent or superintendent aforesaid, but in his own behalf solely, he, Eicheri, having no real interest in the mine upon which it is sought to enforce a miner’s lien.