Rainbo Gold Mines, a Delaware Corporation, Louis C. Deluke and Lucy Deluke v. Matilda C. Magnus

Tenth Circuit

Rainbo Gold Mines, a Delaware Corporation, Louis C. Deluke and Lucy Deluke v. Matilda C. Magnus

398 F.2d 347, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6115

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedJuly 15, 1968

Docket10036

StatusPublished

This text of 398 F.2d 347 (Rainbo Gold Mines, a Delaware Corporation, Louis C. Deluke and Lucy Deluke v. Matilda C. Magnus) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rainbo Gold Mines, a Delaware Corporation, Louis C. Deluke and Lucy Deluke v. Matilda C. Magnus, 398 F.2d 347, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6115 (10th Cir. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This litigation was commenced in July 1963, when Mrs. Magnus brought an action against the appellants and recovered a judgment in the amount of $275,-000. The judgment was affirmed by this court. Rainbo Gold Mines v. Magnus, 371 F.2d 519 (10th Cir. 1966). Mrs. Magnus then obtained a lien on the mining properties owned by the appellants. On May 12, 1967, the United States Marshal sold the property to Mrs. Magnus for $75,000. of her $275,000. judgment. Appellants’ motion to stay the sale was denied by this court. Appellants then asked the district court to set aside the sale and its refusal to do so forms the basis for this appeal.

Appellants’ principal contention is that the purchase price was grossly inadequate and that the sale should be set aside for this reason. There was testimony that the property had a value of $2-4 million but this was based, in part, on an estimate of the value of the ore in place. Appellee’s expert witness testified that the property would not command such a price since the mine was not yet a producing one. From this conflicting evidence the district court found that the amount bid for the property by the ap-pellee was not disproportionate to its real value. We have reviewed the record and cannot say that this finding is clearly erroneous.

Appellee’s motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This litigation was commenced in July 1963, when Mrs. Magnus brought an action against the appellants and recovered a judgment in the amount of $275,-000. The judgment was affirmed by this court. Rainbo Gold Mines v. Magnus, 371 F.2d 519 (10th Cir. 1966). Mrs. Magnus then obtained a lien on the mining properties owned by the appellants. On May 12, 1967, the United States Marshal sold the property to Mrs. Magnus for $75,000. of her $275,000. judgment. Appellants’ motion to stay the sale was denied by this court. Appellants then asked the district court to set aside the sale and its refusal to do so forms the basis for this appeal.

Appellants’ principal contention is that the purchase price was grossly inadequate and that the sale should be set aside for this reason. There was testimony that the property had a value of $2-4 million but this was based, in part, on an estimate of the value of the ore in place. Appellee’s expert witness testified that the property would not command such a price since the mine was not yet a producing one. From this conflicting evidence the district court found that the amount bid for the property by the ap-pellee was not disproportionate to its real value. We have reviewed the record and cannot say that this finding is clearly erroneous.

Appellee’s motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

398 F.2d 347, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 6115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rainbo-gold-mines-a-delaware-corporation-louis-c-deluke-and-lucy-deluke-ca10-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack