The Ketchum keystone. [volume] (Ketchum, Idaho) 1885-1899, 1886-04-10

Findings Of the Supreme Court
Of 1dnhO In the Case Of Hans.
err ct al. w. Austin ct al.-Irts
al March ., 1856.
Extract From Pacific Reporter
" The third alleged error is:

Extract FROM racine l.tI'Tt'l.l
"The third alleged error is:
The finding OF the jury, adopted by tn
court. tina, the original verbal agrecmcn
for the lease included the ground in dispute
and that it was omitted by mutual mistake
is not supported by the evidence: and tha
there is no allegation of mutual mistake III
the pleadings upon which 10 base such
evidence or finding
We think the allegations IN the
pIeadings are sufficient to sustain
the findings, and shall consider the
suniciency Of evidence. This seems
to be the important question in the
case.
From the evidence, undisputed,
we find that the plaintiffs were
particularly anxious to limit the
work of defendants to three men,
and within a prescribed area; that
the matter Of the east tunnel as a
limit was suggested by Austin, one
of the lessees; that the original
lease was in the possession Of les
secs for q week before it was alter
ed that Austin was familiar with
the premises in which the mine
was situated, and all Of it; that
Grant worked on the Elkhorn mine,
of which the leased premises were a
part that after keeping the origi-
nal lease a week, with every oppor-
tunity and motive to examine the
ground, they had it reformed,
extending the original limits; that
at the time the reformed lease was
delivered to them they were all
present that Erwin remained some
time after he had received a copy
as amended, and talked about the
enterprise with Mr.. Lewis; and that
he and the other lessees had an
opportunity and abundant leisure
to examine its contents and that
after all this, as Erwin testiiies, the
restriction on the number Of men
was all that remained unsatisfac-
tory at the time.
The fact that defendants were all
acquainted with the ground, and
had ample opportunity to know the
precise language Of the Lease
opportunities they ought to have
improved, if they did not-leaves a
doubt in the mind of the court, !
which they think is reasonable
one, that any mistake was made as
to the terms Of the lease or the |
premises described in it.
The appellants urge that the
fourth instruction was error, to-wit
II the jury finds that Lewis told the les
sees that their lease extended TO the east /
tunnel, and the lessees so believing went To
work therein with the knowledge of the
plaintiffs, and developed an ore body; and
that plaintiffs received their royalty from
the ore sold thercfrom and that the defend
ants expended large amount Of labor
thereon, so that at the time of the COM
Of this suit there was ore of the
value Of ten thousand dollars on the dump
extracted 10y them-then Lewis and the
plaintiffs would be estopped and prevented
from claiming that the lease did not include
the ground in the east tunnel
The appellants claim that this
instruction is error in that ii fails
to state that the party to be estop-
ped must have had knowledge that
his conduct or representations were
false, and that the party claiming
The benefit of the estoppel was ignor-
ant of the truth, and honestly
relied and acted upon the statement
Or act which is claimed to work the
estoppel. We think the authori-
lies clearly establish that this
instruction is error. While under
a mutual mistake, under the cir
Of this case, the inter
,st of the defendants in the ore
lpon the dump at the time they
'eceived notice of the mistake
would probably be determined by
he terms of the lease, yet we think
he adjudicated cases would not
'xtend the estoppel beyond that
init
Buck, j., and HAYS, c. j., con-
'urring. BRoDERIcK, j., expressing
10 opinion.
Good for <:ranSers.