McClurg v. Crawford

209 F. 340, 126 C.C.A. 266, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1799
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
DecidedNovember 8, 1913
DocketNo. 3,919
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 209 F. 340 (McClurg v. Crawford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
McClurg v. Crawford, 209 F. 340, 126 C.C.A. 266, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1799 (8th Cir. 1913).

Opinion

VAN VALKENBURGH, District Judge.

April 30, 1912, appellant filed his bill of complaint against appellee praying a decree of specific performance of an alleged contract for the purchase from appellant of 45.075 acres of mining land known as the Jay Eye See group of claims in Ouray county, Colo. Appellant, complainant below, alleged complete performance on his part, tendered a deed to the land, and demanded judgment for the purchase price of $10,000. An amendment'to the bill, filed June 29, 1912, set forth the contract as embodied in correspondence filed as exhibits and lettered from “A” to “Y,” inclusive. To the bill, as thus amended, the defendant interposed a demurrer, the material specifications of which are the following:

“(3) That said amended bill shows that no contract for the purchase and sale of the property described therein ever existed between the plaintiff and defendant, and that if any ever did exist, or was ever entered into, between the parties, it is so vague, uncertain, and ambiguous as not to be capable of specific execution through a decree of court.
“(4) Said amended bill fails to allege the time of performance of said alleged contract.
"(5) Said bill upon its face shows that the complainant has a complete and adequate remedy at law.”

The demurrer was sustained, and the bill dismissed; and from this action of the trial court complainant prosecutes this appeal.

That part of the correspondence disclosing the contract declared upon may be said to consist of Exhibits A to I, inclusive, which are as follows:

Exhibit A.
“November 25th, 09.
“Messrs. York & Bathnell, Ouray, Colorado—Gentlemen: Your name is given us by the Hon. John T. Barnett, Attorney General.
[342]*342“Our Client, Mr. Ogden T. McClurg, is tlie owner of tlie following described lode mining claims, situate in your county, namely:
Kremlin Lode — No. 2,570.
Stanley “ — No. 2,571.
SW 14' Mono “ — No. 2,213.
Jay Eye See “
Contact “
Carbonate “
Sunnyside “
Ajax “ — No. 2,632.
“Mr. McClurg is very anxious to dispose of this property and if you think that you can handle the same for him, we should be glad to have you inform us on what terms you would be willing to do so.
“Your prompt reply would be appreciated.
“Yours very truly, Rogers, Ellis & Johnson.”
“JHS—H”
Exhibit B.
“Denver, Colorado, November 29, 1909.
“Messrs. Rogers, Ellis & Johnson, Denver, Colorado—Gentlemen: Your letter of the 25th to Messrs. York & Rathnell has been turned over to me and I wish you would advise me as to the least amount that Mr. Ogden T. McClurg would accept for his Jay Eye See group in the Red Mountain District. Also advise me as to whether an arrangement could be made with him for surface rights on the Carbonate Lode of this group. I own the Indiana Group at the top of the mountain and if I could make proper arrangements I would be tempted to drive a tunnel from near the railroad to cut the Indiana vein.
“Very truly yours, Thos. B. Crawford.”
Exhibit C.
“Dec. 7th, 09.
“Thos. B. Crawford, Esq., Century Bldg., City—Dear Sir: Property of Mr. Ogden T. McClurg. Pardon delay in replying to yours of the 20th ult. Same has been caused by pressure of important matters needing immediate attention.
“We hardly know what to say in response to your inquiry as neither we nor our client are sufficiently informed to fix a price which under all the circumstances' the property should reasonably bring. Two or three years ago, when Mr. McClurg was approached upon the subject, he intimated that he would be willing to accept $25,000, but we have no doubt that if the property is not, by reason of lack of development or for other reasons, in condition to justify such a high valuation, he will be glad to consider an offer of a lower, sum.
“We should be very glad indeed if you would make us a proposition and upon receiving same, we will promptly submit it to M. McClurg, and if the amount you offer does not seem entirely below reason, we have no doubt that he will give 'the same his careful attention.
“Yours very truly, Rogers, Ellis & Johnson.”
“JHS—H”
Exhibit D.
“Denver, Colorado, December 8,1909.
“Rogers, Ellis & Johnson, Denver, Colorado—Gentlemen: Your letter of
the 7th just received. You might offer for me to Mr. McClurg $10,000.00 for the claims at Red Mountain. There is absolutely nothing there at this time to justify even that price, but as I wrote you in my former letter it is my purpose, if I can properly arrange matters, to drive, a tunnel from the foot of the mountain cutting through the property owned by Mr. McClurg and two claims (laying) beyond him and between my property and his.
“Nothing can be done up there until about May 1st in any event, but I would like to conclude the negotiations and know where I stand, because if I do not succeed in getting the properties I will abandon the idea of driving the tunnel.
“Very truly yours,
Thos. B. Crawford.'
[343]*343Exhibit E.
“Dee. 9tll) 09
“Thos. B.' Crawford, Esq., 307 Century Bldg., City—Dear Sir: Ogden T. McClurg Property. We acknowledge receipt of your favor of the 8th inst., and note that in your behalf we may offer Mr. McClurg $10,000 for the claims ‘at Red Mountain.’
“In -order that there may be no mistake as to what claims you refer to, we beg to ask whether, in writing your letter you had in mind the ‘Kremlin’ and ‘Stanley’ lodes, or the ‘Jay Eye See’ Group of claims. Presumably you referred to the former, but we would like to have a definite expression from you upon the subject and upon receipt of same will promptly advise Mr. MeClurg of your offer.
“Yours very truly, Rogers, Ellis & Johnson.”
“JHS—H”
Exhibit F.
“Denver, Colorado, December 11, 1009.
“Messrs. Roger, Ellis & Johnson, Denver, Colorado—Gentlemen: Yours of the 9th with reference to the Ogden T. McClurg property received. I meant the Jay Eye See group of claims at the foot of the mountain. However, if Mr. McClurg is wise he will be like the Kansas homesteader who was deeding his property and discovered that the man to whom he was deeding it could not read.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Marshall v. Greene
27 F. Supp. 403 (D. Massachusetts, 1939)
Woodward v. Molander
22 P.2d 622 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1933)
Gabrielson v. Hogan
298 F. 722 (Eighth Circuit, 1924)
No-Leak-O Piston Ring Co. v. Chandlee
289 F. 526 (D.C. Circuit, 1923)
Wheeler v. Badenhausen Co.
260 F. 991 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
209 F. 340, 126 C.C.A. 266, 1913 U.S. App. LEXIS 1799, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclurg-v-crawford-ca8-1913.